The problem is that Muslims' belief in the dogma of the Quran can restrict the scientific progress they make. For example, Muslim creationism is becoming more popular in Turkey and elsewhere in the Islamic world. If Muslims cannot learn about biology in their schools then they are going to have a lot trouble making advances in the fields of medicine and genetics.
Just for future reference, this is not true about Turkey. Science education is taken very seriously and is conducted very secularly in most regions.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. (the Wikipedia page on Islamic creationism mentioned it was growing strength in Turkey).
Turkey is probably the most secular "Muslim" country. My point was that if such a movement is gaining strength in Turkey one can extrapolate how even more religious countries in the middle east would view evolution, and teach it.
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
I don't think you're very familiar with the entertainment and books that are present in most Arab or Islamic countries. Like, at all.
The problem is that Muslims' belief in the dogma of the Quran can restrict the scientific progress they make. For example, Muslim creationism is becoming more popular in Turkey and elsewhere in the Islamic world. If Muslims cannot learn about biology in their schools then they are going to have a lot trouble making advances in the fields of medicine and genetics.
Just for future reference, this is not true about Turkey. Science education is taken very seriously and is conducted very secularly in most regions.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. (the Wikipedia page on Islamic creationism mentioned it was growing strength in Turkey).
Turkey is probably the most secular "Muslim" country. My point was that if such a movement is gaining strength in Turkey one can extrapolate how even more religious countries in the middle east would view evolution, and teach it.
Given their government I don't see how it could be any more secular...
The problem is that Muslims' belief in the dogma of the Quran can restrict the scientific progress they make. For example, Muslim creationism is becoming more popular in Turkey and elsewhere in the Islamic world. If Muslims cannot learn about biology in their schools then they are going to have a lot trouble making advances in the fields of medicine and genetics.
Just for future reference, this is not true about Turkey. Science education is taken very seriously and is conducted very secularly in most regions.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. (the Wikipedia page on Islamic creationism mentioned it was growing strength in Turkey).
Turkey is probably the most secular "Muslim" country. My point was that if such a movement is gaining strength in Turkey one can extrapolate how even more religious countries in the middle east would view evolution, and teach it.
Given their government I don't see how it could be any more secular...
Do cults of personality count?
Because decriminalizing things like insulting Ataturk or "turkishness" would be nice.
Qingu, it's probably important to keep in mind that religiosity tends to center around Charismatic individuals. That's why nobody actually reads the texts. It's about the speakers and how they say what they say, not what they're basing the ideas on.
Hence Televangelism.
I don't watch televangelists, and I hardly see how someone like Pope Benedict could be considered charismatic. In fact, the only religious speeches I am likely to hear are the homilies during church. Other than that, it's all encyclicals, treatises, books, etc. Maybe some written recordings of speeches, but that's usually it. So please, don't be an asshole.
BTW, this is the sort of problem I have with Dawkins: diagnosing vast swathes of people with blanket statements of cheap psychoanalysis.
You don't like his attitude? This just seems entirely subjective to me. I've read his book and watched a couple of his debates on Youtube and, while his writing has that sort of British high-fallootin'-ness, he seems perfectly polite and even friendly in his debates and speeches. He doesn't strike me as smug at all, he strikes me as passionate and concerned.
I suppose it's easy to offend someone by claiming that everything they believe and have faith in is a "delusion," but he supports his case with rational arguments, he is open to debate and criticism, and he's certainly not advocating violence or even personal attacks or name-calling.
I will admit that he is soft-spoken in his interviews etc., but that does not have much bearing on whether or not he is arrogant. His arrogance stems from his tendency to apply the rudest, most blanket slanders to believers the world over, and it is completely inappropriate. You can say that faith is a form of "mental illness" in the friendliest, most soft-spoken way possible and it is still downright arrogant (and false, to boot).
You state that Dawkins supports his statements with rational arguments, but this is only half-true. Dawkins is an excellent manipulator of phrases, and is quite frankly a sophist. He will claim, say, that religion is a dangerous virus or a severe mental illness. Next, he will attempt to prove (via the rational arguments you mentioned) that religion and theism are false. Do you see the problem? His statement that faith is a mental illness is still dangling there, completely unsupported and serving only as a completely unnecessary insult. If Dawkins started out by saying simply that he believes religion is false, and then attempted to argue the point, my problem with him would be purely rational and intellectual. As it is, the condescension he shows toward all people of faith is utterly absurd and unconstructive.
And why don't you think he "knows very much about the subject of his most intense criticism"? Can you elaborate on this point, please? Are you saying he hasn't read and studied the Bible or the Quran?
Nothing much to elaborate; what I mean is that if he truly believes the things he writes about religion being a disease/illness/delusion, it is simply obvious to me that he must be familiar with only a very small number of religious people. There are brilliant people of faith throghout the world, whether Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Muslim, and I certainly like to think of myself as more than just a retarded Mary worshipper.
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
I don't think you're very familiar with the entertainment and books that are present in most Arab or Islamic countries. Like, at all.
Qingu, it's probably important to keep in mind that religiosity tends to center around Charismatic individuals. That's why nobody actually reads the texts. It's about the speakers and how they say what they say, not what they're basing the ideas on.
Hence Televangelism.
I don't watch televangelists, and I hardly see how someone like Pope Benedict could be considered charismatic. In fact, the only religious speeches I am likely to hear are the homilies during church. Other than that, it's all encyclicals, treatises, books, etc. Maybe some written recordings of speeches, but that's usually it. So please, don't be an asshole.
BTW, this is the sort of problem I have with Dawkins: diagnosing vast swathes of people with blanket statements of cheap psychoanalysis.
Right, because "tends to center around charismatic individuals" is diagnosing vast swathes of people with psychoanalysis. Like, "tends to?" That might as well be "always in every circumstance for every believer, period, with no exceptions ever, period again."
And it couldn't be that this is what a simple historical analysis would show, even though this sort of thing was responsible for the Great Awakenings, televangelism, megachurches and so on.
BTW, this is the sort of problem I have with Dawkins: diagnosing vast swathes of people with blanket statements of cheap psychoanalysis.
Psychoanalysis? Are you referring to his use of the word "Delusion"?
I will admit that he is soft-spoken in his interviews etc., but that does not have much bearing on whether or not he is arrogant. His arrogance stems from his tendency to apply the rudest, most blanket slanders to believers the world over, and it is completely inappropriate. You can say that faith is a form of "mental illness" in the friendliest, most soft-spoken way possible and it is still downright arrogant (and false, to boot).
Has he said faith is a form of mental illness? I've always thought his use of the word "delusion" was rhetorical. As far as I know, he's never really talked much about pschology. I think you are being unfair here.
You state that Dawkins supports his statements with rational arguments, but this is only half-true. Dawkins is an excellent manipulator of phrases, and is quite frankly a sophist. He will claim, say, that religion is a dangerous virus or a severe mental illness. Next, he will attempt to prove (via the rational arguments you mentioned) that religion and theism are false. Do you see the problem? His statement that faith is a mental illness is still dangling there, completely unsupported and serving only as a completely unnecessary insult. If Dawkins started out by saying simply that he believes religion is false, and then attempted to argue the point, my problem with him would be purely rational and intellectual. As it is, the condescension he shows toward all people of faith is utterly absurd and unconstructive.
So you have no problem with the entire book "The God Delusion," your problem is simply that Dawkins asserts faith is a mental illness and doesn't offer support?
And again, I don't recall him asserting this. He does compare faith to a virus in the context of his ideas about memes. But something tells me you're getting your impression of Dawkins more from how he is introduced by others than what he himself has written and said. (I've heard people introduce Dawkins as "the man who thinks faith is a mental illness" and other abrasive epithets. I could be wrong, but I haven't heard Dawkins say that or even discuss it.)
Nothing much to elaborate; what I mean is that if he truly believes the things he writes about religion being a disease/illness/delusion, it is simply obvious to me that he must be familiar with only a very small number of religious people. There are brilliant people of faith throghout the world, whether Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Muslim, and I certainly like to think of myself as more than just a retarded Mary worshipper.
I'm familiar with a large number of highly intelligent religious people and I believe they are all completely wrong. I also believe that many of them have been brainwashed to believe in God, which I see as a "Delusion" because it is a belief that has no basis in reality.
Which is to say, I agree with Dawkins and I don't see much difference in our attitudes towards believers like yourself. What is your opinion of me? Am I arrogant and condescending because I believe you are wrong and that your belief in God has no basis in reality?
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
I don't think you're very familiar with the entertainment and books that are present in most Arab or Islamic countries. Like, at all.
Care to enlighten me?
Everything you've said is, at best, exaggerated to the point of satire? How did you come to this conclusion? Have you been to some bookstores, and did some channel surfing on middle eastern channels?
The problem is that Muslims' belief in the dogma of the Quran can restrict the scientific progress they make. For example, Muslim creationism is becoming more popular in Turkey and elsewhere in the Islamic world. If Muslims cannot learn about biology in their schools then they are going to have a lot trouble making advances in the fields of medicine and genetics.
Just for future reference, this is not true about Turkey. Science education is taken very seriously and is conducted very secularly in most regions.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. (the Wikipedia page on Islamic creationism mentioned it was growing strength in Turkey).
Turkey is probably the most secular "Muslim" country. My point was that if such a movement is gaining strength in Turkey one can extrapolate how even more religious countries in the middle east would view evolution, and teach it.
Given their government I don't see how it could be any more secular...
Do cults of personality count?
Because decriminalizing things like insulting Ataturk or "turkishness" would be nice.
Of course, it's easy to pass judgments on a culture from the other side of the globe without being familiar with the circumstances that have brought forth such laws.
Still, I digress.
Anyway, nobody has answered this still: atheism is the default position because we don't have any proof whatsoever to a god's existence. Therefore the burden of proof is on the "believers", so to speak. If you claim there is a God, you have to prove it to me (that is, if you want to get me to believe). However, since my position (i.e. atheism) is the default, I don't have to prove to you the nonexistence of God.
Anyway, nobody has answered this still: atheism is the default position because we don't have any proof whatsoever to a god's existence. Therefore the burden of proof is on the "believers", so to speak. If you claim there is a God, you have to prove it to me (that is, if you want to get me to believe). However, since my position (i.e. atheism) is the default, I don't have to prove to you the nonexistence of God.
All anyone can say for certain is that there is a lack of evidence either way.
And in that case, we don't reject the null hypothesis...and go with there being no God. That the universe is what it appears to be. Atheism is the default position. You don't adopt it because it has been proven- you adopt it because it is inappropriate to conclude otherwise without evidence.
Exactly.
That may be the way that the universe is, but I'm not sure that's the way human psychology is. I intellectually agree with nearly everything Loren says (excluding his arguments for social atheism/foreign relations), but I think that the proselytizing aspect of his beliefs (non-beliefs, whatever) has - at its core - a severe misunderstanding of human nature. I think that for humans as a species, gods - and other illogical expressions of feelings, emotions, and subconscious drives - are inevitable, and not inherently bad.
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
I don't think you're very familiar with the entertainment and books that are present in most Arab or Islamic countries. Like, at all.
Care to enlighten me?
Everything you've said is, at best, exaggerated to the point of satire? How did you come to this conclusion? Have you been to some bookstores, and did some channel surfing on middle eastern channels?
From talking to Muslims, some of whom live in the Middle East. Sam HArris also cited statistic about books printed in Muslim countries (not many).
So again, would you care to contribute something to this discussion, Elkemil? Or are you just going to continue to be condescending and rude?
Of course, it's easy to pass judgments on a culture from the other side of the globe without being familiar with the circumstances that have brought forth such laws.
Of course, it's easy to justify human rights violations and retroactively punishing people with such violations to stifle freedom of speech through logical fallacies.
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
I don't think you're very familiar with the entertainment and books that are present in most Arab or Islamic countries. Like, at all.
Care to enlighten me?
Everything you've said is, at best, exaggerated to the point of satire? How did you come to this conclusion? Have you been to some bookstores, and did some channel surfing on middle eastern channels?
From talking to Muslims, some of whom live in the Middle East. Sam HArris also cited statistic about books printed in Muslim countries (not many).
So again, would you care to contribute something to this discussion, Elkemil? Or are you just going to continue to be condescending and rude?
Based on my experience with the middle east, I'm going to say everything you've said is very, very wrong.
And I know that statistic, and it has a lot to do with illiteracy, and economics.
Of course, it's easy to pass judgments on a culture from the other side of the globe without being familiar with the circumstances that have brought forth such laws.
Of course, it's easy to justify human rights violations and retroactively punishing people with such violations to stifle freedom of speech through logical fallacies.
I am not trying to justify it. My opinions on the subject are neutral.
I don't want to derail this thread so I will not comment further. Feel free to PM me if you're interested in debate.
I will admit that he is soft-spoken in his interviews etc., but that does not have much bearing on whether or not he is arrogant. His arrogance stems from his tendency to apply the rudest, most blanket slanders to believers the world over, and it is completely inappropriate. You can say that faith is a form of "mental illness" in the friendliest, most soft-spoken way possible and it is still downright arrogant (and false, to boot).
Has he said faith is a form of mental illness? I've always thought his use of the word "delusion" was rhetorical. As far as I know, he's never really talked much about pschology. I think you are being unfair here.
So, to be clear, the semantic position you're attempting to occupy here is that diagnosing someone as being delusional caries no implication of mental illness, that one can be simultaneously delusional while their brain is functioning perfectly?
Do I have that right? Because it seems to smell of dualism.
I'm familiar with a large number of highly intelligent religious people and I believe they are all completely wrong. I also believe that many of them have been brainwashed to believe in God, which I see as a "Delusion" because it is a belief that has no basis in reality.
I would appreciate it if you could share with me, as a religious person, which beliefs of mine are incorrect, that I might rectify the situation.
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
I don't think you're very familiar with the entertainment and books that are present in most Arab or Islamic countries. Like, at all.
Care to enlighten me?
Everything you've said is, at best, exaggerated to the point of satire? How did you come to this conclusion? Have you been to some bookstores, and did some channel surfing on middle eastern channels?
From talking to Muslims, some of whom live in the Middle East. Sam HArris also cited statistic about books printed in Muslim countries (not many).
So again, would you care to contribute something to this discussion, Elkemil? Or are you just going to continue to be condescending and rude?
Based on my experience with the middle east, I'm going to say everything you've said is very, very wrong.
And I know that statistic, and it has a lot to do with illiteracy, and economics.
Can you elaborate? What is your experience with the middle east? Are you disagreeing that many Muslims view music and non-Islamic books as either innessential or tabboo?
Can you please try to interact with the discussion instead of saying "I know about the middle east so you're wrong"? I don't find appeals to one's own authority very convincing.
I will admit that he is soft-spoken in his interviews etc., but that does not have much bearing on whether or not he is arrogant. His arrogance stems from his tendency to apply the rudest, most blanket slanders to believers the world over, and it is completely inappropriate. You can say that faith is a form of "mental illness" in the friendliest, most soft-spoken way possible and it is still downright arrogant (and false, to boot).
Has he said faith is a form of mental illness? I've always thought his use of the word "delusion" was rhetorical. As far as I know, he's never really talked much about pschology. I think you are being unfair here.
So, to be clear, the semantic position you're attempting to occupy here is that diagnosing someone as being delusional caries no implication of mental illness, that one can be simultaneously delusional while their brain is functioning perfectly?
Do I have that right? Because it seems to smell of dualism.
Not that I really want to be associated with Qingu, but a delusion can just be a false belief.
I will admit that he is soft-spoken in his interviews etc., but that does not have much bearing on whether or not he is arrogant. His arrogance stems from his tendency to apply the rudest, most blanket slanders to believers the world over, and it is completely inappropriate. You can say that faith is a form of "mental illness" in the friendliest, most soft-spoken way possible and it is still downright arrogant (and false, to boot).
Has he said faith is a form of mental illness? I've always thought his use of the word "delusion" was rhetorical. As far as I know, he's never really talked much about pschology. I think you are being unfair here.
So, to be clear, the semantic position you're attempting to occupy here is that diagnosing someone as being delusional caries no implication of mental illness, that one can be simultaneously delusional while their brain is functioning perfectly?
Do I have that right? Because it seems to smell of dualism.
Give me a break. You've never called someone "crazy" before, in a rhetorical sense?
Your entire problem with Dawkins is the title of his book?
I would appreciate it if you could share with me, as a religious person, which beliefs of mine are incorrect, that I might rectify the situation.
That would be impossible without knowing what your beliefs are ("religious" is a pretty imprecise term).
Do you believe that the Bible is inspired by God or special in a way that, say, the Enuma Elish or the Illiad is not?
I will admit that he is soft-spoken in his interviews etc., but that does not have much bearing on whether or not he is arrogant. His arrogance stems from his tendency to apply the rudest, most blanket slanders to believers the world over, and it is completely inappropriate. You can say that faith is a form of "mental illness" in the friendliest, most soft-spoken way possible and it is still downright arrogant (and false, to boot).
Has he said faith is a form of mental illness? I've always thought his use of the word "delusion" was rhetorical. As far as I know, he's never really talked much about pschology. I think you are being unfair here.
So, to be clear, the semantic position you're attempting to occupy here is that diagnosing someone as being delusional caries no implication of mental illness, that one can be simultaneously delusional while their brain is functioning perfectly?
Do I have that right? Because it seems to smell of dualism.
Give me a break. You've never called someone "crazy" before, in a rhetorical sense?
You didn't answer the question, this isn't about me. You called it unfair of him to conclude that Dawkins was implying mental illness when he used the language of mental illness to describe people. I am attempting to discern why you think that's his problem rather than one Dawkins brought on himself.
Your entire problem with Dawkins is the title of his book?
I don't recall saying I had a problem with Dawkins.
I would appreciate it if you could share with me, as a religious person, which beliefs of mine are incorrect, that I might rectify the situation.
That would be impossible without knowing what your beliefs are ("religious" is a pretty imprecise term).
If all religious people are incorrect, surely the particular details of my religion are irrelevant? If you believe all religious people are completely wrong, as you said, surely there is some common characteristic among them all that makes me wrong?
Or perhaps not, perhaps instead you've performed a detailed study of all religions and found unique problems with each. I am a Buddhist. Have at me.
Do you believe that the Bible is inspired by God or special in a way that, say, the Enuma Elish or the Illiad is not?
I have no particular opinion on the Bible, other than that it's a very old book.
2. There is no way to put the atheist position (weak or strong) nicely. Anyone interested in claiming to have been insulted, or anyone looking to be insulted, can find it, simply because an atheist, by definition, thinks that any religious person is flat-out wrong about something fundamental to their identity.
3. Richard Dawkins is often criticized for claims he's never made, statements he hasn't made. "The God Delusion" is apparently some vitriolic screed no different from Jerry Falwell's worst...and I can't help but think that people who claim something like that haven't actually read the damn thing. Sam Harris might be a jerk, but I haven't read his works (yet) so I can't comment on them.
Hmmmm, I sort of disagree with #2. A great example is "Faith of a Heretic" by Walter Kaufmann which is sadly out of print. In any case, it is possible to be an atheist and not have the attitude that non-atheists are obviously stupid. I assure you many, many people much smarter than anyone in this forum, were believers.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Can you please try to interact with the discussion instead of saying "I know about the middle east so you're wrong"? I don't find appeals to one's own authority very convincing.
I don't find Harris convincing, either. You said something, and I said it was wrong. But how am I going to prove you wrong, here? Make you learn Arabic, and drag you to a bookstore in Cairo?
I mean, if an Arab speaker said to me "Americans don't read any books that aren't about Christianity" I don't know what I'd say beyond "you're wrong." There isn't much else to say.
It isn't rude for someone to demand proof of me if I'm trying to convince them of something. If I'm evangelising THEM. But if someone demeans my beleifs, or demands I prove something to them, when I haven't tried to convince them of anything, it is aggressive and rude. This applies usually to when someone's religion comes up peripherally in a conversation and someone else decides to be intolerant about it. Just like it's aggressive and rude for someone to demand you prove evolution if it were to come up peripherally in a discussion of Animal Planet. It's unbelievably obnoxious behavior.
The entire point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was to be snide, intollerant, and mocking. However, in this forum, it is generally brought up as an intelectual idea, which is not snide, intollerant, or mocking.
It is dishonest to debate someone's interpretaion of the Bible in order to erode their faith and leave a framework for atheism. Of course it's dishonest. You don't have any problem with the way that they interpret the Bible, you're just using that as an method to hopefully convert them to your beliefs. If you feel like it, you can try to justify that, but that doesn't relate to whether it is intellectually honest or not. Personally I think it's something extremely abhorrent that is most often used for politics, and should be relegated to candidate debates where it doesn't do as much harm.
Besides St. Augustine warned against literal interpretations of the Bible over 1,500 years ago, so challenging those literal interpretations now seems very unlikely to weaken Christianity on anything more than a personal level.
The term "fundamentalist athiesm" does really come from a comparison between the behavior of some athiests and some fundamentalist Christians. It generally refers to people that are either intollerant of anyone that believes differently, or often just someone that evangelizes a lot. Part of the reason people have such a strong, and negative, reaction to that is that most people consider religion a personal belief. They don't think you should intrude on the personal beliefs of others without a bigger reason than just disagreeing with it. Not just in religious terms. They wouldn't want you to go around pointing out people's kids aren't really cute, or their parents aren't really talented either. To cut someone or other off at the pass, this doesn't mean that people's kids aren't cute or their parents aren't talented either. There's no reason to use that as a silly example religion is untrue. Notice people tend to have bad reactions to religious people trying to convert them also.
Athiests are also compared to fundamentalists because people's motivations are emotional, not logical. Even the decision to choose logic is motivated by emotion. Which does not disparage logic, so lets not talk about that either. In any case, this means that for many, many athiests their decision to not believe in God is based on their desire for atheism, not their logical conclusions on the subject. The logical conclusions come later as rationalizations. When you then try to get everyone else to agree with you in a condescending, and sometimes angry, fashion, it smacks more of fundamentalism than logic.
Many athiests are intollerent. I know. I've met them. To believe that anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, becuase your logic is infallible, is very intollerent. Those same people are usually intollerent about most of the other things they believe too. It's not based in their atheism, but it's probably involved with it. See above for my opinion on the most common reason for that. Which is not saying you have to be wishy-washy about things or you're intolerent. You can actually disagree with someone completely without lacking respect.
To repeat real quick: intolerence and extreme evangelizing means fundamentalism to most people.
It is entirely possible to apply logic to religious debate. People have been doing it for millenia. Accepting the existence of God does not as some people seem to think damage the logic center of your brain. I enjoyed C.S. Lewis' writings on religion, although his approach tends to be psychological, rather than factual, logic.
Very little of this applies to Loren. The bad behavior of other athiests has no more relation to the things he says than the bad behavior of other Christians has any relation to what I say. As in most of the religious people that actually argue with the man. It sucks to be put in a position to look like you're agreeing with an idiot because they're trying to back you up. He does evangelize a lot, but it's the intolerence that's more important in my opinion, and he doesn't do that much intolerencizing.
P.S. do I use too many commas? I usually use them correctly, but I end up taking some out because my posts look so comma heavy? I really need to know, it's eating away at me inside. I think the uncertainty might be beginning to endanger the state of my eternal soul.
You didn't answer the question, this isn't about me. You called it unfair of him to conclude that Dawkins was implying mental illness when he used the language of mental illness to describe people. I am attempting to discern why you think that's his problem rather than one Dawkins brought on himself.
I don't think the word "delusion" implies mental illness in everyday speech. I don't see why you do, either.
If all religious people are incorrect, surely the particular details of my religion are irrelevant? If you believe all religious people are completely wrong, as you said, surely there is some common characteristic among them all that makes me wrong?
"Religious people" as I understand the term. Some people say they are religious when they actually just believe in some "universal force" which is, upon examination, completely indistinguishable from the universe itself. I wasn't trying to pussyfoot, I was asking for a clarification.
I think the belief in any god is wrong—god defined here as a supernatural entity who plays an active role in human history. I think this belief is wrong because there is absolutely no evidence to support it—just as I think the belief in fairies is wrong because there is no evidence to support their existence.
Or perhaps not, perhaps instead you've performed a detailed study of all religions and found unique problems with each. I am a Buddhist. Have at me.
What type of Buddhist? Some forms of Buddhism I would classify as a "philosophy" instead of a "religion."
I don't find Harris convincing, either. You said something, and I said it was wrong. But how am I going to prove you wrong, here? Make you learn Arabic, and drag you to a bookstore in Cairo?
I mean, if an Arab speaker said to me "Americans don't read any books that aren't about Christianity" I don't know what I'd say beyond "you're wrong." There isn't much else to say.
No, you'd say "there's a sizable subculture in America that primarily wants to read books about Christianity or books that are endorsed by their church". Publishing for Christians is a huge business, and I'd say that *many* people are engaged in the kind of cocooning you say doesn't happen in the states.
And beyond that, I'd wager that an even larger slice of the populace in 'pick a Middle Eastern nation at random' is the same way.
You could drag me to a bookstore in Berkley and try to convince me that Americans have broad and cosmopolitan taste in books. But Berkley and Cairo are the exceptions in the world, not the rule.
RedShell on
Homing In Imperfectly?
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
"Indoctrination is child abuse" is pretty damn harsh. I want to share something with my children that has made me happy and played a positive role in my development as a person, and suddenly I'm comparable to child molester.
Thanks, Dawkins.
It's harsh, but I think I agree. Taking your child to church every Sunday before the child even has the capacity to reason, or understand English, making the child go through repetitive rituals to induce unquestioning belief, making him sit down and stand up on the pews when the preacher leads a sermon, like clockwork, forcing the child to listen to sermons about heaven and hell, essentially bullying the child to believe what you believe—I certainly think "brainwashing" is a form of child abuse.
Few "children" are old enough to understand their own beliefs. Why then do we label them as "Christians" or "Muslims"? And why on earth would we take them to church every Sunday before they can even decide for themselves if they want to go?
I mean, you might be upset if your child grows up without sharing your faith. You might also be upset if your child grows up without sharing your political affiliation as well, but you wouldn't condone taking infants to Democratic ritual conventions where they're brainwashed into reciting scripture from Barrack Obama's book, and threatened with hellfire and eternal torment if they turn Republican. You certainly wouldn't label your child a "Democratic child" before he's old enough to decide for himself.
So why on earth is this type of behavior uncritically condoned regarding religion?
Can you please try to interact with the discussion instead of saying "I know about the middle east so you're wrong"? I don't find appeals to one's own authority very convincing.
I don't find Harris convincing, either. You said something, and I said it was wrong. But how am I going to prove you wrong, here? Make you learn Arabic, and drag you to a bookstore in Cairo?
I mean, if an Arab speaker said to me "Americans don't read any books that aren't about Christianity" I don't know what I'd say beyond "you're wrong." There isn't much else to say.
So you've been to libraries in Cairo? What kind of books are there? What are Muslims' attitudes about non-Islamic that you've encountered?
If someone said "Americans only read Christian books" I would describe the large libraries full of non-Christian books and discuss a variety of the topics of some books, as well as my personal experience with Americans who have read other books. I wouldn't just say "you're wrong," because that would be rude and non-interactive.
No, you'd say "there's a sizable subculture in America that primarily wants to read books about Christianity or books that are endorsed by their church". Publishing for Christians is a huge business, and I'd say that *many* people are engaged in the kind of cocooning you say doesn't happen in the states.
And beyond that, I'd wager that an even larger slice of the populace in 'pick a Middle Eastern nation at random' is the same way.
But is that the fairest comparison? Why not choose a nation of comparable industrial and economic development? I think you'll find the religious subculture in the United States disproportionately influential by contrast, both socially and politically.
You didn't answer the question, this isn't about me. You called it unfair of him to conclude that Dawkins was implying mental illness when he used the language of mental illness to describe people. I am attempting to discern why you think that's his problem rather than one Dawkins brought on himself.
I don't think the word "delusion" implies mental illness in everyday speech. I don't see why you do, either.
You don't think that "delusional" is a loaded word that implies its referent has mental problems? Ok, that's fair. I don't agree with that in the least, and have no idea what you think delusional means, but if you don't think it means that then I guess I can see where you're coming from.
If all religious people are incorrect, surely the particular details of my religion are irrelevant? If you believe all religious people are completely wrong, as you said, surely there is some common characteristic among them all that makes me wrong?
"Religious people" as I understand the term. Some people say they are religious when they actually just believe in some "universal force" which is, upon examination, completely indistinguishable from the universe itself. I wasn't trying to pussyfoot, I was asking for a clarification.
I think the belief in any god is wrong—god defined here as a supernatural entity who plays an active role in human history. I think this belief is wrong because there is absolutely no evidence to support it—just as I think the belief in fairies is wrong because there is no evidence to support their existence.
Ok, fair enough. There are those in this thread who've made an unsubtle leap from "There is no evidence that a God or Gods exist, thus the logical default position is that they do not exist unless presented with extraordinary evidence to the contrary, ergo all religious people are wrong". You can see how I might find that somewhat unfair and ignorant, given that I have no faith in the existence of a higher deity.
Or perhaps not, perhaps instead you've performed a detailed study of all religions and found unique problems with each. I am a Buddhist. Have at me.
What type of Buddhist? Some forms of Buddhism I would classify as a "philosophy" instead of a "religion."
I couldn't pin it down too closely, and it shouldn't overly matter at any rate given the absence of dogmas, but feel free to assume Therevadan or Zen in practice.
One of the things I dislike about atheists, at least the kind we get 'round here most times, is the presumption that Religion means "things with characteristics that conform to Western Abrahmic religions" and no others. No one in India or Sri Lanka would question the status of Buddhism as a religion, but here the idea that religion might be broader than Western history historically thought it is inconvenient, and so it's simpler too simply suggest that Buddhism be striped of constitutional protection and its associated privileges. I don't find that solution appealing.
Did you learn nothing from our PM discussion on FSM? I've tried over and over to tell you that FSM is just a counterargument, not an allegory or mocking of religion.
As for there being a lot of "asshole" atheists, I don't think that's the case. I heard a lot about Dawkins being an "asshole" in the God Delusion, but all I found in there was passionate, well thought out arguments. Speaking your mind and backing up your ideas with reason (even if you're speaking out against something very popular) is not being an asshole.
Cute.
No, I gave it up because I knew the same argument would come up in a topic eventually, and the PMs were getting too tiresome for me to just be talking to you.
But case in point, you asking me whether or not I "learned" anything is exactly the kind of smug shit that gets people. Regardless of who was right or wrong in that long PM debate, I don't think there was ever any instance of you "teaching me" something about FSm that I didn't already know very well.
But is that the fairest comparison? Why not choose a nation of comparable industrial and economic development? I think you'll find the religious subculture in the United States disproportionately influential by contrast, both socially and politically.
I think you're positing a 'proportionate' amount of influence that some people should have that simply doesn't exist. How influential should America's religious subcultures be? If it were up to me, the answer would be zero, but of course it isn't in either case.
The point is that 'isolationist Christians' (people who only want to read/watch/listen to Christian content) are less influential in the states than their Islamic counterparts are in your average Middle Eastern nation. I know there are a lot of people who are pretty invested in saying there's some kind of equivalence, but I think the smart money is on 'not very equivalent'.
RedShell on
Homing In Imperfectly?
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
0
Options
Burden of ProofYou three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on.Registered Userregular
"Indoctrination is child abuse" is pretty damn harsh. I want to share something with my children that has made me happy and played a positive role in my development as a person, and suddenly I'm comparable to child molester.
Thanks, Dawkins.
It's harsh, but I think I agree. Taking your child to church every Sunday before the child even has the capacity to reason, or understand English, making the child go through repetitive rituals to induce unquestioning belief, making him sit down and stand up on the pews when the preacher leads a sermon, like clockwork, forcing the child to listen to sermons about heaven and hell, essentially bullying the child to believe what you believe—I certainly think "brainwashing" is a form of child abuse.
Few "children" are old enough to understand their own beliefs. Why then do we label them as "Christians" or "Muslims"? And why on earth would we take them to church every Sunday before they can even decide for themselves if they want to go?
I mean, you might be upset if your child grows up without sharing your faith. You might also be upset if your child grows up without sharing your political affiliation as well, but you wouldn't condone taking infants to Democratic ritual conventions where they're brainwashed into reciting scripture from Barrack Obama's book, and threatened with hellfire and eternal torment if they turn Republican. You certainly wouldn't label your child a "Democratic child" before he's old enough to decide for himself.
So why on earth is this type of behavior uncritically condoned regarding religion?
That is certainly a fair opinion, but my argument wasn't about whether or not he should criticize typical religious practices. I simply don't agree with his methods at times. Actually, I don't really agree with the assertion that indoctrination is inherently wrong either, but that may just be because I'm religious myself. I don't see it as "bullying" a child into believing in your personal god, but simply sharing something you love with your children. Basically, what you'd have parents do is keep religion away from their children altogether, which is clearly impossible if your faith is an important part of your life.
Also, if my children ask me if God exists, I certainly see no problem with saying, "yes", like you shouldn't have any problem saying "no". I definitely agree with Dawkins on some thing, such as the psychological abuse naturally associated with doctrines based solely on guilt, bigotry, and condemnation. I've seen letters from children begging God to forgive them so they wouldn't burn in hell, and it frankly disgusted me.
I see the validity in your government analogy, but it just doesn't feel the same to me. That's not an argument that holds up to scrutiny though.
You didn't answer the question, this isn't about me. You called it unfair of him to conclude that Dawkins was implying mental illness when he used the language of mental illness to describe people. I am attempting to discern why you think that's his problem rather than one Dawkins brought on himself.
I don't think the word "delusion" implies mental illness in everyday speech. I don't see why you do, either.
You don't think that "delusional" is a loaded word that implies its referent has mental problems? Ok, that's fair. I don't agree with that in the least, and have no idea what you think delusional means, but if you don't think it means that then I guess I can see where you're coming from.
I think it's provocative—I mean, it's a book title.
One of the things I dislike about atheists, at least the kind we get 'round here most times, is the presumption that Religion means "things with characteristics that conform to Western Abrahmic religions" and no others. No one in India or Sri Lanka would question the status of Buddhism as a religion, but here the idea that religion might be broader than Western history historically thought it is inconvenient, and so it's simpler too simply suggest that Buddhism be striped of constitutional protection and its associated privileges. I don't find that solution appealing.
First of all, I think the problem you have with such atheists is semantic. I would call your belief "philosophical," you would call it "religious." We disagree only in the words we use to describe your beliefs—and like most semantic differences it's not something I feel strongly about anyway.
Secondly, I don't believe any "religion" should have constitutional protection because the line between a "religion" and an "ideology" or "philosophy" is a line drawn in the sand. I don't understand why a Mennonite opposed to war on "religious" grounds is different from an atheist opposed to war on philosophical grounds—but only one can avoid the draft.
Can you please try to interact with the discussion instead of saying "I know about the middle east so you're wrong"? I don't find appeals to one's own authority very convincing.
I don't find Harris convincing, either. You said something, and I said it was wrong. But how am I going to prove you wrong, here? Make you learn Arabic, and drag you to a bookstore in Cairo?
I mean, if an Arab speaker said to me "Americans don't read any books that aren't about Christianity" I don't know what I'd say beyond "you're wrong." There isn't much else to say.
So you've been to libraries in Cairo? What kind of books are there? What are Muslims' attitudes about non-Islamic that you've encountered?
If someone said "Americans only read Christian books" I would describe the large libraries full of non-Christian books and discuss a variety of the topics of some books, as well as my personal experience with Americans who have read other books. I wouldn't just say "you're wrong," because that would be rude and non-interactive.
Well, there are book stores full of non-Islamic books, and translated books. But that was kind of implied when I said you were wrong. :P
I think that opining about something you know very little of is 'ruder', though. Or so says our Assumption of Knowledge thread.
But is that the fairest comparison? Why not choose a nation of comparable industrial and economic development? I think you'll find the religious subculture in the United States disproportionately influential by contrast, both socially and politically.
I think you're positing a 'proportionate' amount of influence that some people should have that simply doesn't exist. How influential should America's religious subcultures be? If it were up to me, the answer would be zero, but of course it isn't in either case.
The point is that 'isolationist Christians' (people who only want to read/watch/listen to Christian content) are less influential in the states than their Islamic counterparts are in your average Middle Eastern nation. I know there are a lot of people who are pretty invested in saying there's some kind of equivalence, but I think the smart money is on 'not very equivalent'.
And yet you're 'positing' that their Islamic counterparts in the average Middle Eastern nation are more influential. Which is why questioned whether or not that was a fair comparison. What about their counterparts in Europe or the most industrialized Asian societies? Against those nations, is not then possible to argue that American religious subculture is more influential by comparison?
Did you learn nothing from our PM discussion on FSM? I've tried over and over to tell you that FSM is just a counterargument, not an allegory or mocking of religion.
As for there being a lot of "asshole" atheists, I don't think that's the case. I heard a lot about Dawkins being an "asshole" in the God Delusion, but all I found in there was passionate, well thought out arguments. Speaking your mind and backing up your ideas with reason (even if you're speaking out against something very popular) is not being an asshole.
Cute.
No, I gave it up because I knew the same argument would come up in a topic eventually, and the PMs were getting too tiresome for me to just be talking to you.
But case in point, you asking me whether or not I "learned" anything is exactly the kind of smug shit that gets people. Regardless of who was right or wrong in that long PM debate, I don't think there was ever any instance of you "teaching me" something about FSm that I didn't already know very well.
I agree, no learning occurred. It was just me telling you that the purpose of FSM was not to mock, but to refute, then you ignoring me and asserting it again. This has been like the fifth time I've tried, and you never even acknowledge that I've made that point. I'm getting exasperated that you just ignore perfectly good points. But apparently, I'm not allowed to point this out because it's "smug shit."
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Can you elaborate? What is your experience with the middle east?
I lived there.
Where? "The Middle East" is a big place. Where did you live, and for how long?
Till I was 15, in Sudan, Egypt and Libya, while travelling to many others.
Okay. Interesting. Can you be more specific? Did you live with other Westerners? Did you live with hardline Muslims? How is your experience indicitive of general attitudes in the middle east?
Are you disagreeing that many Muslims view music and non-Islamic books as either innessential or tabboo?
Yes.
Okay. Are you basing this on your personal experience? How many devout Muslims did you know and discuss this with in your time in the middle east?
Wasn't really an issue to discuss. There was music, there were books, and people listened to music and read books.[/quote]
See above. Who were these people? Does your experience negate my claim that many hardline Muslims are opposed to many forms of music and non-Islamic books?
Well, there are book stores full of non-Islamic books, and translated books. But that was kind of implied when I said you were wrong. :P
How many? What kind of books were there? I never denied there were bookstores in the middle east, I claimed that many Muslims are opposed to non-Islamic books. Again, you're going to need to be more specific as to how your personal experience negates my claim.
I think that opining about something you know very little of is 'ruder', though. Or so says our Assumption of Knowledge thread.
I wasn't aware that I knew "very little" about Muslim attitudes, and I also fail to see how living in the middle east as a child somehow gives you the right to declare anyone who disagrees with you as wrong by fiat.
Posts
Turkey is probably the most secular "Muslim" country. My point was that if such a movement is gaining strength in Turkey one can extrapolate how even more religious countries in the middle east would view evolution, and teach it.
I don't think you're very familiar with the entertainment and books that are present in most Arab or Islamic countries. Like, at all.
Given their government I don't see how it could be any more secular...
Do cults of personality count?
Because decriminalizing things like insulting Ataturk or "turkishness" would be nice.
I don't watch televangelists, and I hardly see how someone like Pope Benedict could be considered charismatic. In fact, the only religious speeches I am likely to hear are the homilies during church. Other than that, it's all encyclicals, treatises, books, etc. Maybe some written recordings of speeches, but that's usually it. So please, don't be an asshole.
BTW, this is the sort of problem I have with Dawkins: diagnosing vast swathes of people with blanket statements of cheap psychoanalysis.
I will admit that he is soft-spoken in his interviews etc., but that does not have much bearing on whether or not he is arrogant. His arrogance stems from his tendency to apply the rudest, most blanket slanders to believers the world over, and it is completely inappropriate. You can say that faith is a form of "mental illness" in the friendliest, most soft-spoken way possible and it is still downright arrogant (and false, to boot).
You state that Dawkins supports his statements with rational arguments, but this is only half-true. Dawkins is an excellent manipulator of phrases, and is quite frankly a sophist. He will claim, say, that religion is a dangerous virus or a severe mental illness. Next, he will attempt to prove (via the rational arguments you mentioned) that religion and theism are false. Do you see the problem? His statement that faith is a mental illness is still dangling there, completely unsupported and serving only as a completely unnecessary insult. If Dawkins started out by saying simply that he believes religion is false, and then attempted to argue the point, my problem with him would be purely rational and intellectual. As it is, the condescension he shows toward all people of faith is utterly absurd and unconstructive.
Nothing much to elaborate; what I mean is that if he truly believes the things he writes about religion being a disease/illness/delusion, it is simply obvious to me that he must be familiar with only a very small number of religious people. There are brilliant people of faith throghout the world, whether Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Muslim, and I certainly like to think of myself as more than just a retarded Mary worshipper.
And it couldn't be that this is what a simple historical analysis would show, even though this sort of thing was responsible for the Great Awakenings, televangelism, megachurches and so on.
GOD, INCENJUAR, WHY ARE YOU SO ARROGANT?
Has he said faith is a form of mental illness? I've always thought his use of the word "delusion" was rhetorical. As far as I know, he's never really talked much about pschology. I think you are being unfair here.
So you have no problem with the entire book "The God Delusion," your problem is simply that Dawkins asserts faith is a mental illness and doesn't offer support?
And again, I don't recall him asserting this. He does compare faith to a virus in the context of his ideas about memes. But something tells me you're getting your impression of Dawkins more from how he is introduced by others than what he himself has written and said. (I've heard people introduce Dawkins as "the man who thinks faith is a mental illness" and other abrasive epithets. I could be wrong, but I haven't heard Dawkins say that or even discuss it.)
I'm familiar with a large number of highly intelligent religious people and I believe they are all completely wrong. I also believe that many of them have been brainwashed to believe in God, which I see as a "Delusion" because it is a belief that has no basis in reality.
Which is to say, I agree with Dawkins and I don't see much difference in our attitudes towards believers like yourself. What is your opinion of me? Am I arrogant and condescending because I believe you are wrong and that your belief in God has no basis in reality?
Of course, it's easy to pass judgments on a culture from the other side of the globe without being familiar with the circumstances that have brought forth such laws.
Still, I digress.
Anyway, nobody has answered this still: atheism is the default position because we don't have any proof whatsoever to a god's existence. Therefore the burden of proof is on the "believers", so to speak. If you claim there is a God, you have to prove it to me (that is, if you want to get me to believe). However, since my position (i.e. atheism) is the default, I don't have to prove to you the nonexistence of God.
That may be the way that the universe is, but I'm not sure that's the way human psychology is. I intellectually agree with nearly everything Loren says (excluding his arguments for social atheism/foreign relations), but I think that the proselytizing aspect of his beliefs (non-beliefs, whatever) has - at its core - a severe misunderstanding of human nature. I think that for humans as a species, gods - and other illogical expressions of feelings, emotions, and subconscious drives - are inevitable, and not inherently bad.
So again, would you care to contribute something to this discussion, Elkemil? Or are you just going to continue to be condescending and rude?
Of course, it's easy to justify human rights violations and retroactively punishing people with such violations to stifle freedom of speech through logical fallacies.
Based on my experience with the middle east, I'm going to say everything you've said is very, very wrong.
And I know that statistic, and it has a lot to do with illiteracy, and economics.
I am not trying to justify it. My opinions on the subject are neutral.
I don't want to derail this thread so I will not comment further. Feel free to PM me if you're interested in debate.
Do I have that right? Because it seems to smell of dualism.
I would appreciate it if you could share with me, as a religious person, which beliefs of mine are incorrect, that I might rectify the situation.
Can you please try to interact with the discussion instead of saying "I know about the middle east so you're wrong"? I don't find appeals to one's own authority very convincing.
Not that I really want to be associated with Qingu, but a delusion can just be a false belief.
Your entire problem with Dawkins is the title of his book?
That would be impossible without knowing what your beliefs are ("religious" is a pretty imprecise term).
Do you believe that the Bible is inspired by God or special in a way that, say, the Enuma Elish or the Illiad is not?
I don't recall saying I had a problem with Dawkins.
If all religious people are incorrect, surely the particular details of my religion are irrelevant? If you believe all religious people are completely wrong, as you said, surely there is some common characteristic among them all that makes me wrong?
Or perhaps not, perhaps instead you've performed a detailed study of all religions and found unique problems with each. I am a Buddhist. Have at me. I have no particular opinion on the Bible, other than that it's a very old book.
Hmmmm, I sort of disagree with #2. A great example is "Faith of a Heretic" by Walter Kaufmann which is sadly out of print. In any case, it is possible to be an atheist and not have the attitude that non-atheists are obviously stupid. I assure you many, many people much smarter than anyone in this forum, were believers.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Yes.
I don't find Harris convincing, either. You said something, and I said it was wrong. But how am I going to prove you wrong, here? Make you learn Arabic, and drag you to a bookstore in Cairo?
I mean, if an Arab speaker said to me "Americans don't read any books that aren't about Christianity" I don't know what I'd say beyond "you're wrong." There isn't much else to say.
It isn't rude for someone to demand proof of me if I'm trying to convince them of something. If I'm evangelising THEM. But if someone demeans my beleifs, or demands I prove something to them, when I haven't tried to convince them of anything, it is aggressive and rude. This applies usually to when someone's religion comes up peripherally in a conversation and someone else decides to be intolerant about it. Just like it's aggressive and rude for someone to demand you prove evolution if it were to come up peripherally in a discussion of Animal Planet. It's unbelievably obnoxious behavior.
The entire point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was to be snide, intollerant, and mocking. However, in this forum, it is generally brought up as an intelectual idea, which is not snide, intollerant, or mocking.
It is dishonest to debate someone's interpretaion of the Bible in order to erode their faith and leave a framework for atheism. Of course it's dishonest. You don't have any problem with the way that they interpret the Bible, you're just using that as an method to hopefully convert them to your beliefs. If you feel like it, you can try to justify that, but that doesn't relate to whether it is intellectually honest or not. Personally I think it's something extremely abhorrent that is most often used for politics, and should be relegated to candidate debates where it doesn't do as much harm.
Besides St. Augustine warned against literal interpretations of the Bible over 1,500 years ago, so challenging those literal interpretations now seems very unlikely to weaken Christianity on anything more than a personal level.
The term "fundamentalist athiesm" does really come from a comparison between the behavior of some athiests and some fundamentalist Christians. It generally refers to people that are either intollerant of anyone that believes differently, or often just someone that evangelizes a lot. Part of the reason people have such a strong, and negative, reaction to that is that most people consider religion a personal belief. They don't think you should intrude on the personal beliefs of others without a bigger reason than just disagreeing with it. Not just in religious terms. They wouldn't want you to go around pointing out people's kids aren't really cute, or their parents aren't really talented either. To cut someone or other off at the pass, this doesn't mean that people's kids aren't cute or their parents aren't talented either. There's no reason to use that as a silly example religion is untrue. Notice people tend to have bad reactions to religious people trying to convert them also.
Athiests are also compared to fundamentalists because people's motivations are emotional, not logical. Even the decision to choose logic is motivated by emotion. Which does not disparage logic, so lets not talk about that either. In any case, this means that for many, many athiests their decision to not believe in God is based on their desire for atheism, not their logical conclusions on the subject. The logical conclusions come later as rationalizations. When you then try to get everyone else to agree with you in a condescending, and sometimes angry, fashion, it smacks more of fundamentalism than logic.
Many athiests are intollerent. I know. I've met them. To believe that anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, becuase your logic is infallible, is very intollerent. Those same people are usually intollerent about most of the other things they believe too. It's not based in their atheism, but it's probably involved with it. See above for my opinion on the most common reason for that. Which is not saying you have to be wishy-washy about things or you're intolerent. You can actually disagree with someone completely without lacking respect.
To repeat real quick: intolerence and extreme evangelizing means fundamentalism to most people.
It is entirely possible to apply logic to religious debate. People have been doing it for millenia. Accepting the existence of God does not as some people seem to think damage the logic center of your brain. I enjoyed C.S. Lewis' writings on religion, although his approach tends to be psychological, rather than factual, logic.
Very little of this applies to Loren. The bad behavior of other athiests has no more relation to the things he says than the bad behavior of other Christians has any relation to what I say. As in most of the religious people that actually argue with the man. It sucks to be put in a position to look like you're agreeing with an idiot because they're trying to back you up. He does evangelize a lot, but it's the intolerence that's more important in my opinion, and he doesn't do that much intolerencizing.
P.S. do I use too many commas? I usually use them correctly, but I end up taking some out because my posts look so comma heavy? I really need to know, it's eating away at me inside. I think the uncertainty might be beginning to endanger the state of my eternal soul.
--LeVar Burton
"Religious people" as I understand the term. Some people say they are religious when they actually just believe in some "universal force" which is, upon examination, completely indistinguishable from the universe itself. I wasn't trying to pussyfoot, I was asking for a clarification.
I think the belief in any god is wrong—god defined here as a supernatural entity who plays an active role in human history. I think this belief is wrong because there is absolutely no evidence to support it—just as I think the belief in fairies is wrong because there is no evidence to support their existence.
What type of Buddhist? Some forms of Buddhism I would classify as a "philosophy" instead of a "religion."
No, you'd say "there's a sizable subculture in America that primarily wants to read books about Christianity or books that are endorsed by their church". Publishing for Christians is a huge business, and I'd say that *many* people are engaged in the kind of cocooning you say doesn't happen in the states.
And beyond that, I'd wager that an even larger slice of the populace in 'pick a Middle Eastern nation at random' is the same way.
You could drag me to a bookstore in Berkley and try to convince me that Americans have broad and cosmopolitan taste in books. But Berkley and Cairo are the exceptions in the world, not the rule.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
Heh, I have to link to this book now.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Beleif in god would be a pretty safe bet.
Okay. Are you basing this on your personal experience? How many devout Muslims did you know and discuss this with in your time in the middle east?
So you've been to libraries in Cairo? What kind of books are there? What are Muslims' attitudes about non-Islamic that you've encountered?
If someone said "Americans only read Christian books" I would describe the large libraries full of non-Christian books and discuss a variety of the topics of some books, as well as my personal experience with Americans who have read other books. I wouldn't just say "you're wrong," because that would be rude and non-interactive.
But is that the fairest comparison? Why not choose a nation of comparable industrial and economic development? I think you'll find the religious subculture in the United States disproportionately influential by contrast, both socially and politically.
Ok, fair enough. There are those in this thread who've made an unsubtle leap from "There is no evidence that a God or Gods exist, thus the logical default position is that they do not exist unless presented with extraordinary evidence to the contrary, ergo all religious people are wrong". You can see how I might find that somewhat unfair and ignorant, given that I have no faith in the existence of a higher deity.
I couldn't pin it down too closely, and it shouldn't overly matter at any rate given the absence of dogmas, but feel free to assume Therevadan or Zen in practice.
One of the things I dislike about atheists, at least the kind we get 'round here most times, is the presumption that Religion means "things with characteristics that conform to Western Abrahmic religions" and no others. No one in India or Sri Lanka would question the status of Buddhism as a religion, but here the idea that religion might be broader than Western history historically thought it is inconvenient, and so it's simpler too simply suggest that Buddhism be striped of constitutional protection and its associated privileges. I don't find that solution appealing.
No, I gave it up because I knew the same argument would come up in a topic eventually, and the PMs were getting too tiresome for me to just be talking to you.
But case in point, you asking me whether or not I "learned" anything is exactly the kind of smug shit that gets people. Regardless of who was right or wrong in that long PM debate, I don't think there was ever any instance of you "teaching me" something about FSm that I didn't already know very well.
I think you're positing a 'proportionate' amount of influence that some people should have that simply doesn't exist. How influential should America's religious subcultures be? If it were up to me, the answer would be zero, but of course it isn't in either case.
The point is that 'isolationist Christians' (people who only want to read/watch/listen to Christian content) are less influential in the states than their Islamic counterparts are in your average Middle Eastern nation. I know there are a lot of people who are pretty invested in saying there's some kind of equivalence, but I think the smart money is on 'not very equivalent'.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
That is certainly a fair opinion, but my argument wasn't about whether or not he should criticize typical religious practices. I simply don't agree with his methods at times. Actually, I don't really agree with the assertion that indoctrination is inherently wrong either, but that may just be because I'm religious myself. I don't see it as "bullying" a child into believing in your personal god, but simply sharing something you love with your children. Basically, what you'd have parents do is keep religion away from their children altogether, which is clearly impossible if your faith is an important part of your life.
Also, if my children ask me if God exists, I certainly see no problem with saying, "yes", like you shouldn't have any problem saying "no". I definitely agree with Dawkins on some thing, such as the psychological abuse naturally associated with doctrines based solely on guilt, bigotry, and condemnation. I've seen letters from children begging God to forgive them so they wouldn't burn in hell, and it frankly disgusted me.
I see the validity in your government analogy, but it just doesn't feel the same to me. That's not an argument that holds up to scrutiny though.
First of all, I think the problem you have with such atheists is semantic. I would call your belief "philosophical," you would call it "religious." We disagree only in the words we use to describe your beliefs—and like most semantic differences it's not something I feel strongly about anyway.
Secondly, I don't believe any "religion" should have constitutional protection because the line between a "religion" and an "ideology" or "philosophy" is a line drawn in the sand. I don't understand why a Mennonite opposed to war on "religious" grounds is different from an atheist opposed to war on philosophical grounds—but only one can avoid the draft.
Wasn't really an issue to discuss. There was music, there were books, and people listened to music and read books.
Well, there are book stores full of non-Islamic books, and translated books. But that was kind of implied when I said you were wrong. :P
I think that opining about something you know very little of is 'ruder', though. Or so says our Assumption of Knowledge thread.
And yet you're 'positing' that their Islamic counterparts in the average Middle Eastern nation are more influential. Which is why questioned whether or not that was a fair comparison. What about their counterparts in Europe or the most industrialized Asian societies? Against those nations, is not then possible to argue that American religious subculture is more influential by comparison?
I agree, no learning occurred. It was just me telling you that the purpose of FSM was not to mock, but to refute, then you ignoring me and asserting it again. This has been like the fifth time I've tried, and you never even acknowledge that I've made that point. I'm getting exasperated that you just ignore perfectly good points. But apparently, I'm not allowed to point this out because it's "smug shit."
Wasn't really an issue to discuss. There was music, there were books, and people listened to music and read books.[/quote]
See above. Who were these people? Does your experience negate my claim that many hardline Muslims are opposed to many forms of music and non-Islamic books?
How many? What kind of books were there? I never denied there were bookstores in the middle east, I claimed that many Muslims are opposed to non-Islamic books. Again, you're going to need to be more specific as to how your personal experience negates my claim.
I wasn't aware that I knew "very little" about Muslim attitudes, and I also fail to see how living in the middle east as a child somehow gives you the right to declare anyone who disagrees with you as wrong by fiat.