The War Against Christianity

[articulett]

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

Or my liberal hagginess.

That was funny... a chubby kid was calling me fat. He doesn't know how I look, but I'm not fat at all. It's always that way though, isn't it... the people running around critiquing others are often noticing faults in others that are more evident in themselves. And the funny thing is, they blow a gasket when it comes back to them--as if they have no clue that they started the volley of barbs.

I know I can be very biting. But, I don't think I've ever started it (but I admit to enjoying the exchange and keeping it going--when you get the blowhards pissed they self implode making for riotous fun. )

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

FNORD why not just beat them upside the head whilst screaming "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU'D HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU" that A: Would have made them leave you alone and B: most likely would have converted them good! Also please explain what is this myth of a war on Christianity even though I consider to be a Catholic/Christian I find it hard to believe that there is a war on Cristianity why dont you go back to my Grandmothers country of Lebanon or in fact any other Arab speaking nation and ask what the Church has done to them over the years in fact why not ask any one of any religion apart from any form of Christianity about what the Church has done to them! The only threat Christianity and its variants face is from within itself meaning all of the different denominations cant go with out in fighting look at Ireland with the Catholics and Protastints that tore a country apart for years and again correct me if I'm wrong here but Catholics and Protastints are 2 sides to 1 religion same God same Jesus Christ same Bible 2 different views and 2 ways of worshiping and observing the same religion. In my opinion neither are wrong if both at least preach peace on Earth, turn the other cheeck and to love thy neighbour and all the basic Christian teachings then they are both as right as each other, Now FNORD please tell me what is the biggest threat to Christianity? Christianity in all its forms or everyone and everything else?

 

[tsg]

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

I was only trying to clarify what Dawkins said. I didn't say it was necessarily right, nor did I say it was right because Dawkins said it. But if we are going to argue about whether Dawkins is right or not, we should at least be arguing about what Dawkins actually said.

I disagree with him. I think it's a rather large stretch to say that moderates and liberals encourage fundamentalists.

Dawkins doesn't say that either.

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.

Dawkins acknowledges this as well. In fact, it's the reason he makes the statement at all. What he's trying to impress on the moderates is that it is the practice of encouraging blind faith without evidence, the "faith is good" meme, that allows fundamentalists of every flavor to act in otherwise unacceptable ways. In other words, when you preach that belief in a god without question is a virtue, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when some people take it too far, especially when that preaching never once says "within reason."

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.

I don't disagree with this either. Dawkins isn't saying that the moderate believers are responsible for the actions of the fundamentalists. He's saying the faith the moderates encourage is the exact same faith the fundamentalists use to justify their actions, just taken to an extreme.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

Nope. It has to do with burden of evidence. The claim "there is no god" which is a negative response to the claim "there is a god" carries no burden of evidence. This is because the claim "there is no god" would never have been made unless someone made the claim "there is a god." Since the claim "there is a god" has not been established to be true by any sense of objective reasoning, then the burden remains upon that claim.

 

[biomorph]

I'm not making any claim to be proved.

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

Yes you are, you asked for a value
the probability of gods existance IS zero. zilch, nada, nothing.
No its a classical argument from an uneducated (in maths) mind.

 

[biomorph]

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.

I know you'll never relinquish your crown.
And I don't pretend.
The rest of your post I understand, but i'm unfamiliar with "razor shop logic", is that some new theory based on shopping? I hope so, I'm into retail therapy.

 

[articulett]

I know you'll never relinquish your crown.
And I don't pretend.
The rest of your post I understand, but i'm unfamiliar with "razor shop logic", is that some new theory based on shopping? I hope so, I'm into retail therapy.

I suspect I meant "razor sharp"-- but I'll go with shop... as in Little Shop of Horrors. And that's razor --as in Occam's. See how cleverly I can use my "razor shop" logic to make even my malapropisms make sense (at least to me...)

But if we are going to win this damn war on Christianity, I should probably learn to proofread and such, eh?

 

[biomorph]

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

If there was any evidence no doubt it would be taken into careful consideration, to be fair, I would have thought.

Unfortunately there has yet to be any.

If you have some, please share.

 

[biomorph]

I suspect I meant "razor sharp"-- but I'll go with shop... as in Little Shop of Horrors. And that's razor --as in Occam's. See how cleverly I can use my "razor shop" logic to make even my malapropisms make sense (at least to me...)

But if we are going to win this damn war on Christianity, I should probably learn to proofread and such, eh?

sorry, i thought you meant the leg shaving variety, !
You might not need to proof read after all, after reading the good book, most Xtians are technically illiterate.

 

[articulett]

sorry, i thought you meant the leg shaving variety, !
You might not need to proof read after all, after reading the good book, most Xtians are technically illiterate.

I've noticed that they tend to have problems in logic, grammar, and general sentence structure. I actually think Christian Hate Mail at is some of the funniest "literature" on this planet.

 

[SomeGuy]

I've noticed that they tend to have problems in logic, grammar, and general sentence structure. I actually think Christian Hate Mail at is some of the funniest "literature" on this planet.

Yeah, it's all laughs and chuckles untill someone blows up an abortion clinic...

 

[biomorph]

I've noticed that they tend to have problems in logic, grammar, and general sentence structure. I actually think Christian Hate Mail at is some of the funniest "literature" on this planet.

Oh, I'd better fish it out of the shredder, and re-file it under "humour" then........

 

[Herzblut]

Nope. It has to do with burden of evidence. The claim "there is no god" which is a negative response to the claim "there is a god" carries no burden of evidence. This is because the claim "there is no god" would never have been made unless someone made the claim "there is a god." Since the claim "there is a god" has not been established to be true by any sense of objective reasoning, then the burden remains upon that claim.

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.

 

[SomeGuy]

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.

No it's not, and you're Arguing from Personal Incredulity.

"not-X" is the natural logical position when faced with an unsubstansiated "X".

You assume it's a fallacy because you can't believe that it's so.

Thus: Argument from Personal Incredulity.

 

[biomorph]

That's irrelevant. Let's assume that for a claim "G" no supporting evidence has been found.

Yup follow you there ok..

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.

Still with you.....

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.

The burden of proof you seem to be talking about does prove G's nonexistance. The claims made by the assertion that G exists are testable because the assertion defines G. Not only do the asserted claims fail the test of observational evidence, the evidence also provides an explanation as to the replacement mechanism making G a false and failed hypothesis......
Also the statment "missing evidence" assumes, to me , that there is evidence, but it is missing.
But its not missing. Its nonexistant. there is no evidence to miss.
This is tantamount to hoping there is some evidence,
but not having any.

This method is used often by some with the doubt that under the premise of "science doesn't know everything"
and "science cannot know everything".

But of course that is a retreating position in the face of the definition of G being disproved.

That retreat is ongoing as the evidence of neutral observation is not providing a definition of G. Its providing a positive definition of something else. Not G.

As G is defined by only non evidential assertion, not evidence from observation, then its easy to refute the defined value of G.

G is not "whatever i think up at the time" It is defined by its assertations of its proponants. It is therefore easy to refute, as the evidence says otherwise.

If you run out of fuel in the car, and your tank meter says zero, and your car stops working, the evidence supports the observation that you have run out of fuel.

So instead of taking it to the service shop for an oil change, you just fire some gas in there.

Ahaaa! the meter reads "not empty", and the car runs.

You may rightly say at that juncture, I ran out of fuel.

You have just proved a negative, ie the negative value of the fuel in your tank when the evidence says there is NONE.........Yes?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Well, as soon as I become a neurologist, I'll pass it along.

Actually, I posted a video clip of Dr. Ramachandran talking about it. I don't know if he's the one who discovered it, but he's the first one I heard about it from. I know that it was discovered by observing temporal lobe ecliptics while they were having a seizure. This paper says that it was Ramachandran who discovered it in 1997. I can't find anything else on the web.

Small correction. I don't know if Michael Persinger^WP was the first to explore the links between religious experience and the temporal lobes, but he was doing it well before 1997.


As for this wonderful thread, I've recently been leaning toward something akin to Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of "Nonoverlapping Magisteria." Religion has no place in government, science, general education, and various other fields. Where it tries to dictate terms in those areas, it should be rebuffed fiercely. But where it intersects with art, literature, culture, and the exploration of human experience, it should be given a respectful berth.

I’d like to think it’s possible to be a pluralist without being an “enabler.”

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Small correction. I don't know if Michael Persinger^WP was the first to explore the links between religious experience and the temporal lobes, but he was doing it well before 1997.


As for this wonderful thread, I've recently been leaning toward something akin to Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of "Nonoverlapping Magisteria." Religion has no place in government, science, general education, and various other fields. Where it tries to dictate terms in those areas, it should be rebuffed fiercely. But where it intersects with art, literature, culture, and the exploration of human experience, it should be given a respectful berth.

I’d like to think it’s possible to be a pluralist without being an “enabler.”

Why? What makes religion deserving of "a respectful berth?" If it isn't true, why bother with it?

 

[biomorph]

The only thing religion deserves in my book is more like a disrespectful kicking.
From my end of things, it deserves a place in the trash can. No where else.
I could supply more invective and condemnation, but I'm feeling kind.
Must be the medication kicking in, (at last!)

Aaahhhhhhhhhh............................................

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Why? What makes religion deserving of "a respectful berth?" If it isn't true, why bother with it?

Why be respectful of the culture of the Ecuadorian aboriginal Hoarani? They believe people can turn into jaguars. No respect for them! Let the oil companies have their way!

Why be respectful of art? Sometimes it depicts fairies. No respect for artists! Censorship all around!

If being "true" is the only reason you'd "bother" with something, I can only imagine you lead an incredibly dreary and colorless life. (No offense, I'm just trying to reduce your position to absurdity.)

 

[JoeEllison]

Why be respectful of the culture of the Ecuadorian aboriginal Hoarani? They believe people can turn into jaguars. No respect for them! Let the oil companies have their way!

Why be respectful of art? Sometimes it depicts fairies. No respect for artists! Censorship all around!

If being "true" is the only reason you'd "bother" with something, I can only imagine you lead an incredibly dreary and colorless life. (No offense, I'm just trying to reduce your position to absurdity.)

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

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