The War Against Christianity

[Herzblut]

Nominated for non sequitur of the year. Good luck, Herzblut.

I pointed out that the flat earth hypothesis is a very valid one in many cases.

So, I'm not convinced you understood my post's intention to speak out on the stupidity of dogmatism.

 

[articulett]

I'll have to take it to the judges...

This is certainly more entertaining than any of the "real" arguments that the god botherers come up with.

You still have to explain why the big bang makes more sense than joobz argument in a way that makes sense to joobz or he wins. And the more he can convince himself and others to believe it... the more true it is in the land of woo .

 

[SezMe]

So, I'm not convinced you understood my post's intention to speak out on the stupidity of dogmatism.

I am thoroughly convinced that I do not understand your post's intention. Wanna try me again?

 

[Herzblut]

I am thoroughly convinced that I do not understand your post's intention.

So why didn't you ask me instead of giving a meaningless comment on it?

 

[articulett]

I am thoroughly convinced that I do not understand your post's intention. Wanna try me again?

I am thoroughly convinced that nobody understands Herzblut's intentions.

 

[SezMe]

So why didn't you ask me instead of giving a meaningless comment on it?

I'm gonna ignore the bait and simply hereby ask.

 

[kmortis]

See, Kmortis... this is on a skeptics forum... should this be treated differently than any other woo? Do you really want to be inadvertently propping up this kind of thinking in the name of tolerance... If faith is good... extreme faith is better, right? Ryan... and others who urge this coddling of religionists... can't you see that this is the result?... and increasingly stupid and arrogant and extreme versions of this in an effort to prove that they have the most faith and that they are the favorite of the right invisible guy? Shall we coddle the moderate astrology believers and conspiracy theorists and homeopaths too? Stupidity in our fellow humans coupled with arrogance can be very dangerous.

I never said it shouldn't be challenged. In fact, go look at a DOC thread, I was involved in addressing (at first) and then ridiculing him from the beginning. I've no issue with addressing "woo" or whatever you want to call it. However, remember DLX and DOC are not your normal theist. They are your normal obstinate and obdurate person, though.

 

[Ladewig]

Well I will admit those of us who do believe in God are not perfect and sure the Church has done some awfull stuff like the inquisition but at the same time most of us mean no harm.
Unfortunately science gave us stuff like the atomic bomb.

Wait. You're using the atomic bomb as an example of harm done by science? The atomic bomb was used to end one of the costliest and bloodiest wars in the history of the world. The technology that arose from the atomic bomb allows countries like France to generate over 75% of its power without burning fossil fuels. Atomic energy allows western democracies to be less dependent on oil-rich countries that are run by religious fundamentalists.

Furthermore, even if you think science does harm people, the vast, vast, vast majority of scientific progress has allowed people to live longer, better, safer, more comfortable, more knowledgeable, and more peaceful lives.

Please don't trot out the tired, old, and laughably weak argument that maybe religion has done bad things but science has done bad things too.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I think all of us "militant atheists" have a live and let live in our daily lives... but we also notice that when we are continually silent or deferent we are encouraging this idea that "faith is good"... and that is a dangerous idea... it can fester behind closed doors.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I’m sure I’m not doing the best job delineating my position. Tolerance to me in no way implies silence, much less deference.

Moreover, religious people start to feel entitled to rights they don't want to give non-believers or those who believe differently-- nativity displays on public property--10 commandments statues in courthouses, etc. It's insidious.

Agreed. But is the answer to abolish all religion, as biomorph would like? Do you agree with her on that?

Plus, no matter what you say bad about religion anywhere... there's a mad dash of people to silence you and pretend that you are damning ALL religion and that they are not all equally bad. We know that... but one can evolve into the other just by following the meme that "faith is good" or necessary for morality.... or the ticket to paradise. I don't want to support the notion that "faith is good" or a means of finding truth. I don't want to support this idea of an eternal soul that can suffer forever... it's manipulative... and hurts trusting people and intelligent minds. I don't want people thinking that other people or books or gurus have access to special divine truths that can only be found through subjective (and lazy) means-- like faith. I think truth is more important than faith and knowledge is equally available to everyone who has the brains to understand it.

Again, tolerance does not imply support. In fact, if you have to work to tolerate something, the opposite is pretty well implied.

It's a derail to pretend that those who think like me are lumping all religions in the same pot... we aren't--

Yet biomorph’s (and others’) solution is to abolish all religion. Is that your solution?

but they all do claim to have divine truths and give adherents a sense of "knowingness" and imagined humility when neither is evident--plus it requires the very opposite of skepticism... it requires faith-- as though feelings and belief could lead to objective truths. It makes people subvert their own beliefs and will and moral leanings and imagine it comes from "on high". Yes, so many are harmless and even beneficial and comforting... yes, many people have come to need their faith... yes the moderates are better than the fundies-- but not to the fundies-- to the fundies the moderates are "less faithful"-- less saved-- and that is a rational position if one actually believes that faith is the key to salvation. Who wants to not have enough faith if it means that you get to live happily ever after?

And it ends up being hard to discuss these kinds of things because of the weird way people always change the conversation into this derail with the assumption that you are saying all religions are bad and evil.

It’s not an assumption. I’m reacting to the wish of at least one poster here who would have us abolish all religion.

Most believers assume everyone is a believer--including me. You would never know by my actions that I'm an atheist... any more than you'd know that I don't believe in astrology. But on this forum, I assume that most people are atheists unless they want me to know otherwise. And religion needs no defenders--all religions have people willing to die for their faith... even atheists rush in to defend faith and demonize those who dare say anything bad about it. So many presumptions are made about those on this forum who speak like I do or Dawkins does or even the way Randi does. They hear radical invective when there is none and miss the far more offensive statements made by the few ardent theists who post here... or even the invectives and judgmental nastiness of some of the supposed non-theists who regular call people "god haters" and act like they are doing some "imagined" (always nebulous) damage to some "imagined" cause.

I’m not defending religion. I’m defending a stance on how religion should be dealt with in a free and open democracy.

I -- a bleeding heart left wing liberal -- also believe Republicans should have a right to their beliefs. Does that make me a “defender” of Republicans? Lord, I hope not.

But the cause is truth--isn't it?... everything open for discussion and examination... no sacred cows. What is a fact and what is an opinion- What can be known with a high degree of certainty and what is an illusion or a fallacy in thinking-- what enhances human understanding and happiness and what decreases suffering, injustice, superstition, and oppression. How can we all know the amazing things that Scientists and magicians and neurologists and so forth are discovering about this world and humans and how we come to believe what we believe... how can we teach others... what is the value of critical thinking... what methods work best to raise up others and vanquish ignorance.

Lots of people feel that encouraging moderate type religions is the answer... to just pooh pooh the radicals and leave the nice ones alone. I leave all of them alone... until they infringe on me.

Thank you. My stance in a nutshell. Or should I now accuse you of “defending” religion?

But theists have a way of saying something that implies my agreement or that requires my deference or that vilifies my lack of belief-- even the "moderates". They do not give me the same freedom of opinion and speech that they take for themselves... they expect my silence while voicing their opinions loudly (see Unrepentant Sinner for example).

Is the solution to abolish religion? I’m actually still not clear if that’s what you feel.

On this forum, I don't like that people try to exhibit that same behavior. All of us experience it all the time in our real lives. I am not a radical or militant anything. I don't trod on anyone's rights... I respect peoples opinions to the same extent that they respect mine.

My stance in a nutshell. Otherwise known as “mutual tolerance.”

And yet... even on a skeptics forum there's these vigilantes tsk tsking the nonbeliever or telling them to "tone it down" or accusing them of hurting some "cause" or implying that they are "militant" (ha!) and, always pretending that they are lumping all religion in the same boat and calling all religion equally bad or evil in order to avoid hearing what we are actually saying.

You are doing that. You are asking us to agree that some religions are better than others... we already agree-- but that diminishes our stronger belief that the "faith is good" meme is bad for humanity in general.

Stuff and nonsense. My argument is neither for nor against religious belief, nor any religion in particular. Some religions reflexively respect the mutual "live and let live" contract I'd impose. That's the only criterion by which I'm judging any given religion here.

It's a recipe for ignorance... the moderates encourage it's spread just as the radicals... and they give the radicals permission to say, "we are more faithful than you therefore we are better and more favored by god". Don't you see this?

Yes. So we should therefore abolish all religion? Isn’t there a less drastic means of combating the problems religion represents? I’m still not clear on your stance here.

We're not destroying religion or bugging people...

biomorph and others want religion abolished. That’s what my arguments are reacting to.

but we want no part of this paradigm... we want kids and other trusting people to question whether faith is a good way to know anything... whether anyone has a right to say they know what happens when we die. Silence and deference leads such people to trust that we agree with the paradigm... that everyone does.

Just to repeat, “silence and deference” are a mischaracterization of my position. I hope that's clear now.

So, yes, many faiths are fine-- but the premise behind them--the sacred cow they support-- is dangerous. We can't get rid of it... but to us it always sounds like the apologists are asking us to prop it up. No thanks.

I’m no apoligist. I don’t want religion “propped up.” If it wants to dig its own grave, I’ll lend it a shovel, as I’ve mentioned before.

I understand why people believe. I don't tell children that Santa is really their parents. But don't ask me to participate in the lie. I'm not doing anything militant by mocking religion on a skeptics forum and refusing to capitulate to this notion that we ought to support moderate faiths.

I’m not supporting moderate faiths. They’re merely an example of religions with which one can typically coexist in a state of mutual tolerance (however grudging and uneasy, I might add.)

I don't tell people in my real life they are stupid for having their beliefs or show hostility towards the faithful-- but I feel dishonest and a sense of revulsion when I'm asked to show deference or support for some faiths because they are more moderate than others. I don't support faith as a means of knowledge at all. I don't think the benefits of faith outweigh the harm it does to reasoning ability and the potential it has for abuse.

Sure, some people really feel that Peter Popoff heals them or that they are having religious ecstasy and communion with god... some people really feel their loved ones are watching over them and tweaking the laws of physics in their favor-- but I don't support the notion that this is respect-worthy because it makes people feel good.

You can disrespect a religion and still tolerate it.

 

[Mister Earl]

I was stationed with a guy who I thought was borderline insane. He used to be something of a punk as a kid, apparently, but was "reborn" or whatever it is they call it. He'd read from the bible, in the barracks, LOUDLY. We'd all ignore him. It was kind of annoying, but nothing worth breaking a sweat, however. That ended the day he cornered me in the stairwell, and told me in no uncertain terms that if I didn't go with him to his church, RIGHT THAT MINUTE, that I would go to hell. Long story short, he went alone after I offered to sanctify his jaw for him. I got the feeling this guy had been voted "Most likely to get sucked up into a cult" in high school.

 

[Ladewig]

Also please tell me without a argument why does the big bang make more sense to YOU than the Bible.

Because the Bible contradicts itself, contains an amazing number of silly stories, offers no practical knowledge of how the world actually works, and pretty much paints God as a bipolar nut case who alternates between loving His creation and killing His creation.

Cain and Abel work equally hard to make a gift for God. God (who loves us as a father loves his own children) sees the gifts and tells Abel, "wow, what a great gift. I love it." God then tells Cain, "meh, whatever." One doesn't need to be omnipotent to see what was going to happen next.

 

[bignickel]

Also please tell me without a argument why does the big bang make more sense to YOU than the Bible.

Actually, it's the Bible vs. the Koran, vs. the Aztec creation stories, vs. the Olmec creation stories, vs. the Greek creation stories, vs. the various N. American Indian tribes' creation stories, vs. the Chinese creation stories, vs. Scientology creation stories, vs. the Nordic creation stories... etc.

...versus current scientific thought and evidence about the beginnings of the universe.


Once you guys have all figured out amongst yourselves which one of you is top dog for "creation story with the best evidence", then you can come back here to challenge science.

 

[biomorph]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I’m sure I’m not doing the best job delineating my position. Tolerance to me in no way implies silence, much less deference.

So how would you define your type of tolerance?

If you are not silent, what would you say?
If you are not going to supply deference, what is the stance that one should take? what stance should I take?

I've stated my position, where are you coming from?

I am genuinely intrigued about this tolerance you think is good practice.

Maybe there is another way, and I would consider it, if you would care to enlighten me as to what it is.

Agreed. But is the answer to abolish all religion, as biomorph would like? Do you agree with her on that?

That is possible end game. If someone wishes to practice a religion, without inficting that on any other lifeform (family included), thats fine.

Again, tolerance does not imply support. In fact, if you have to work to tolerate something, the opposite is pretty well implied.

Again i'm not sure i follow you here. Tolerance does imply support I think. I could (but do not) tolerate the teaching of creationism in science class. Does that make it a wise strategy?
I could tolerate weeds in my garden? What chance do my flowers have? Same question, different subject.

Again, please, I need a more precise definition of the type of tolerance you envisage.
It might be worthwhile, after all.

Yet biomorph’s (and others’) solution is to abolish all religion. Is that your solution?

that is not what i actually said in the main. You also said that I would be banning politics. that is, on your part alone, an eronious view of my postion.

I expect a retraction, matey.

It’s not an assumption. I’m reacting to the wish of at least one poster here who would have us abolish all religion.
I’m not defending religion. I’m defending a stance on how religion should be dealt with in a free and open democracy.

I -- a bleeding heart left wing liberal -- also believe Republicans should have a right to their beliefs. Does that make me a “defender” of Republicans? Lord, I hope not.

since when has the major religions in the world responded to "openness and democracy"

God is not an elected official, after that its turtles all the way down is it not?

If Islam happened to be the main religion using sharia law in , say, 25yrs in your own country due to "natural" and "tolerant" practices by the citizens and the state.
ARE you going to "tolerate" that absolute travesty of human rights in your country. ?

Are you.?????

you may think this is a purely rhetorical question, but to answer it would also define how much tolerance you would give credance to.

I do not think that the example in the question is a reality. So don't start climbing up the wrong tree.

I'm no apoligist. I don’t want religion “propped up.” If it wants to dig its own grave, I’ll lend it a shovel, as I’ve mentioned before.

And I'm suggesting that the shovel needs to be bigger , and more of them.

I’m not supporting moderate faiths. They’re merely an example of religions with which one can typically coexist in a state of mutual tolerance (however grudging and uneasy, I might add.)

Yes, but as you have said they do not like it. What do you think would happen if any of those religions just happened to be the survivor of them all, in the future. Or as in other countries.

You can disrespect a religion and still tolerate it.

Yes, you can. I could. But disrespect religion and it'll bite back, and you know it.

Or are you implying that religion (xtian if you like) will play to the same rules. That is not what they teach the converts to do is it.?.

 

[Wolverine]

Also please tell me without a argument why does the big bang make more sense to YOU than the Bible.

No one here as actually told me that without a stupid argument.

You're lumping together unrelated concepts as the result of being exposed to and/or harboring common misconceptions. Other posters have described their reasoning in answering you, however I feel select points have either been omitted or not emphasized strongly enough.

First, it's important to dispense with the "either or" reasoning that's been popularized by religious believers and apologetics. This discussion boils down to our species seeking answers about origins -- as such, it's not a case of the Big Bang and/or evolution and/or atheism versus Genesis.

Key points to internalize and remember:

• Science is a formalized, empirical process -- it employs a strict methodology and addresses observable phenomena in the natural world. Neither scientific methodology nor the scientific theories resulting from that process include religious or non-religious positions.
  
  
• The Big Bang is a cosmological model which describes how the universe changed over time. It does not presume to explain the origin of the universe.
  
  
• Evolution is a biological model which describes how life on Earth changed over time. It does not presume to explain the origin of life.
  
  
• Science is not, nor is it intended to be, a replacement for religion or religious faith. It's an evidence-based method we use to develop our best and most reasonable conclusions about the natural world.
  

These concepts have been simplified for ease of discussion here. They're not terribly difficult to grasp, but are so frequently misunderstood by theists. Bearing them in mind:

Genesis is an archaic account attempting to definitively explain origins of the universe, life, and whatnot. Neither the Big Bang nor evolution attempt to explain origins. As a result, it does not logically follow for apologetics/believers to pit evolution versus God or cosmological models versus Genesis, advocating that you must accept one or the other. And, because biology and cosmology are scientific disciplines, scientific theories which explain these processes/phenomena are neither theistic nor atheistic in nature.

Now ask yourself what caused the big bang?

"We don't know" is the simplest and most honest, correct answer. Causality is not a function of the model. The Big Bang describes how the universe developed, not where it came from -- if the universe indeed even came from anywhere. Unfortunately the cosmos doesn't really care about what we deem reasonable or rational. With time, effort, and technology we'll likely assemble a better answer in the future. For the time being, "we don't know" will have to do.

what created the earth you live on?

"Formed" would be a preferable term to "created". The best-supported models indicate Earth (along with the rest of the solar system) formed naturally over time via accretion (overview -- more).

All I asked is why is God NOT in the equation?

To elaborate upon what I noted above -- unless you're using a non-standard definition of God, you're invoking a supernatural claim which is neither testable nor falsifiable. Such things by definition are not part of scientific methodology. Further, and reiterating a key term introduced by another poster: parsimony.

I hope this helps.

 

[biomorph]

All I asked is why is God NOT in the equation?

Because scientific discovery and observation cannot find him to put him in the equation.

If a god could be there, scientific and other rational observers would be able to detect it.
That, is the actual reality we face.

It is not the opposition to your god that is the main thrust of any scientific discovery.

It is the absence of the gods influence or workings to manifest itself to the scientific community that is the real issue..

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

So how would you define your type of tolerance?

If you are not silent, what would you say?
If you are not going to supply deference, what is the stance that one should take? what stance should I take?

I've stated my position, where are you coming from?

I am genuinely intrigued about this tolerance you think is good practice.

Maybe there is another way, and I would consider it, if you would care to enlighten me as to what it is.

Some tough questions. Let me give them a whirl.

What I’m really trying to establish here (very clumsily) is when to act. At what point should one take an active stance against religion? Should every religious system and all religious beliefs be attacked all the time? My answer is no. One acts when religion exceeds the “live and let live” standard. Otherwise, tolerance.

You asked for examples of religions which typically keep to that standard. I like to think my list gave some.

That is possible end game. If someone wishes to practice a religion, without inficting that on any other lifeform (family included), thats fine.

I believe a religion should be as free to try to convince people of its “truths” as political parties are to try and sway people’s political views. Religion has a bad habit of taking this too far. On those occasions, there’s no reason to hold back.

At worst, this promises a perpetual, low-level conflict between religiosity and secularism. So long as the conflict is contained, it’s a state I’d be willing to accept to ensure such freedoms as belief and expression.

Again i'm not sure i follow you here. Tolerance does imply support I think. I could (but do not) tolerate the teaching of creationism in science class. Does that make it a wise strategy?
I could tolerate weeds in my garden? What chance do my flowers have? Same question, different subject.

Tolerance to me is a neutral stance. If I’m mischaracterizing “tolerance,” perhaps you could read “neutral stance” when I use the word.

But your larger point: If religion goes unchecked, it will cause general harm to society (yes?). I believe that’s true of many forms of religion (particularly those that can’t abide the L&LL standard). I don’t believe its true of religion, per se. IOW, religion isn’t a weed, it’s just another plant. It may or may not be harmful to your garden.

Perhaps this is the heart of our disagreement.

Again, please, I need a more precise definition of the type of tolerance you envisage.
It might be worthwhile, after all.

Have I done so yet?

that is not what i actually said in the main. You also said that I would be banning politics. that is, on your part alone, an eronious view of my postion.

I expect a retraction, matey.

I’ll be happy to retract it, but I’m not there yet. Here, you say...

IMO directing our energies to fighting back when it tramples on the rights of others does mean with the aim of eventually getting rid of it altogether. It tramples on the rights of all its partakers, whether they are aware of it or not, I feel.
You seem to think the tiger can be tamed, I think history and current events speak otherwise. I respect your opinion to hold that view, I cannot hold that view myself however..

To sum, your goal is to abolish religion altogether, no?

To retry my previous point: if your argument applies equally well to politics as to religion, but you don’t think politics should be abolished, then your argument is at best incomplete, and at worst self-contradictory.

Can we agree to that? If so, I’ll try to show how your argument applies equally well to politics, if you haven’t already guessed.

since when has the major religions in the world responded to "openness and democracy"

Since the time they starting flourishing in open, democratic societies.

God is not an elected official, after that its turtles all the way down is it not?

If Islam happened to be the main religion using sharia law in , say, 25yrs in your own country due to "natural" and "tolerant" practices by the citizens and the state.
ARE you going to "tolerate" that absolute travesty of human rights in your country. ?

Are you.?????

In a word, no.

you may think this is a purely rhetorical question, but to answer it would also define how much tolerance you would give credance to.

I do not think that the example in the question is a reality. So don't start climbing up the wrong tree.

I’m willing to give all the tolerance I have toward religions that adhere to the L&LL standard.

Yes, but as you have said they do not like it. What do you think would happen if any of those religions just happened to be the survivor of them all, in the future. Or as in other countries.

If they changed from tolerable to intolerable, there’d be no holding me back.

Yes, you can. I could. But disrespect religion and it'll bite back, and you know it.

Or are you implying that religion (xtian if you like) will play to the same rules. That is not what they teach the converts to do is it.?.

Different Christian denominations and churches teach different things. Some are more worthy of tolerance than others. In short, and to sum everything, I believe it's possible to take a nuanced approach toward religion.

 

[biomorph]

Ok
I think i can see roughly where you are here, and you have illustrated some areas where tolerance would not suffice. Possibly also where tolerance would be ok.

thank you for that, much appreciated too. I know it takes some time to work this out.

i'm getting to understand your position a little more I think.

however the retraction i'm after is over politics only.
As I consider that a different sociological feature of the human condition and never postulated that as a similar, or comparitive to, religion or worthy of removal.
The comparison is all your's not mine.
however i can live without the retraction if thats easier on you.

I have, it is clear to me, a different opinion from you on a number of issues regarding the dealing with religion.
i accept that difference, and respect it.

Unfortunately i feel i will be proved to hold the more accurate view as the future unfolds, but that is also only my opinion.

we shall see i guess as time goes on.

I would like to get some clarification on what would also produce a workable L&ll policy, if that is acceptable to you.

a sort of what is, and what isn't, rough guide to acceptable practice and what is not acceptable practice.

regards

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

Wait. You're using the atomic bomb as an example of harm done by science? The atomic bomb was used to end one of the costliest and bloodiest wars in the history of the world. The technology that arose from the atomic bomb allows countries like France to generate over 75% of its power without burning fossil fuels. Atomic energy allows western democracies to be less dependent on oil-rich countries that are run by religious fundamentalists.

Furthermore, even if you think science does harm people, the vast, vast, vast majority of scientific progress has allowed people to live longer, better, safer, more comfortable, more knowledgeable, and more peaceful lives.

Please don't trot out the tired, old, and laughably weak argument that maybe religion has done bad things but science has done bad things too.[/QUOT]

Ladewig I was using the atomic bomb as an example of something bad.
Also nuclear power can cause more pollution in just getting the uranium out of the ground than what it is worth from my understanding.

Also I see no one has had a grand insight that has given them an argument to convince me that religion is bad and atheism is good.

Wolverine I will say good argument.

 

[Mobyseven]

I pointed out that the flat earth hypothesis is a very valid one in many cases.

No, it's not. Just because one doesn't have to adjust for the curvature of the earth in many practical everyday situations (eg. building permits) doesn't mean that it is reasonable to hypothesise that the earth is flat. In fact, it is patently ridiculous.

 

[Herzblut]

No, it's not. Just because one doesn't have to adjust for the curvature of the earth in many practical everyday situations (eg. building permits) doesn't mean that it is reasonable to hypothesise that the earth is flat. In fact, it is patently ridiculous.

You're funny. Let me try to make you understand how science works, in contrast to dogma. For a cartographical project, the flat earth hypothesis might be assumed. This is justified, because it's an excellent approximation over the relevant length scale. In other words, the flat earth hypothesis is justified by pragmatism here, it's correct. That's what it's all about: pragmatism, not dogma. You got it? The fact that the flat earth hypothesis is an insufficient model for calculating the shortest flight path between Berlin and New York, has no impact on our mapping project. For the flight, a spherical or even an ellipsoidal approximation of the earth's shape has to be used. It might even be this shape has been measured with high accuracy by satellites. Nevertheless, the results of those measurements will probably not be used by our local cartographers, the flat earth approximation might be simply more accurate than measurement.