293 replies to this topic

[Emma_Acid]

socrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 01:54 PM, said:

Yes, because Communist governments, working without religion, have a great track record.

"Authorities that are anti-religious are bad, therefore religious societies are good."

As non-sequiturs go, that one's got mould on it.

socrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 01:54 PM, said:

Well, sweeping generalizations are the way to go, I guess.

Religion is inherently anti-progress and anti-science. The more we discover about the natural world, the less we need religion, and the faithful know it. Fundamentalists would quite happily throw away the last 500 years of progress, and wouldn't have any trouble admitting it.

As for being anti-humanist - just look at Catholicism's ideas about sin.

socrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 01:54 PM, said:

But isn't tolerance the watchword for "reason" as you put it? Without it, we'd be a bunch of bigoted, religious (oh noes,) mindless robots. Oh wait.

I don't see how being an antitheist makes you bigoted, and we shouldn't just be tolerant for the sake of it. Are you tolerant of general racism, sexism and homophobia as well? Of course not.

socrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 01:54 PM, said:

Hurray, let's pick examples of times when religions causes problems. Then, for 200 points, we'll take Communist atrocities.

I've shown this to be a non-argument. Either way, you're missing the point. I wasn't commenting on any religion, I was commenting on what happens when faith and superstition inform people's outlook and are the basis for a society. Meaningless correlations are made and bad things happen. Just look at the Catholic padeo scandal - their original official line was that "the devil is in the Vatican". When superstition informs your outlook and your world-view, you can pass any nonsense off as "reality".

[socrates.junior]

Emma_Acid, on 14 June 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

"Authorities that are anti-religious are bad, therefore religious societies are good."

As non-sequiturs go, that one's got mould on it.

Sigh. I never said that. I was saying that the reverse of what you postulated as true, was also true.

Quote

Religion is inherently anti-progress and anti-science. The more we discover about the natural world, the less we need religion, and the faithful know it. Fundamentalists would quite happily throw away the last 500 years of progress, and wouldn't have any trouble admitting it.

As for being anti-humanist - just look at Catholicism's ideas about sin.

I'm not a fundamentalist. I think you're missing the point of the article which this topic was based on. Here, I'll state it again. All religious people are not fundamentalists. Okay, I hope that helps a bit.

What exactly is your problem with Catholicism's ideas about sin?

Quote

I don't see how being an antitheist makes you bigoted, and we shouldn't just be tolerant for the sake of it. Are you tolerant of general racism, sexism and homophobia as well? Of course not.

I was being sarcastic. IMO, "tolerance" is a joke.

Quote

I've shown this to be a non-argument. Either way, you're missing the point. I wasn't commenting on any religion, I was commenting on what happens when faith and superstition inform people's outlook and are the basis for a society. Meaningless correlations are made and bad things happen. Just look at the Catholic padeo scandal - their original official line was that "the devil is in the Vatican". When superstition informs your outlook and your world-view, you can pass any nonsense off as "reality".

No, you haven't shown it to be a non-argument, you merely misidentified my parameters of argument. Okay, you didn't reference religion, you said "faith." Nonetheless, it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

[mklsgl]

JamieSymptom, on 14 June 2010 - 08:20 AM, said:

People like to think they have come to right conclusions. Forthright people will argue their points if they feel challenged or feel that they may change someone's mind. It doesn't matter if you are christian, atheist, buddhist, agnostic, muslim, whatever. Some people will argue the toss.

Does it make an atheistic viewpoint invalid if you share some personality characteristics with some of those whom you theologically oppose? Er, nope.

Besides, it's easy to ignore someone if you think they're talking rubbish.

Oh yeah, I was under the impression that Dawkins is British, not American? Mind you, he probably gets more discussion and controversy around his views in the US than he does here.

Great post, JamieSymptom. Some people (actually, too many people, IMO) have a serious NEED to think they have come to "right conclusions." Their beliefs are inherently intertwined to their personal and societal identity. Challenging their beliefs is the same as attacking their identity.

I would venture that the overwhelming majority of Americans (99.7%) have no idea who Richard Dawkins is; in fact, most would say that he was the host of "Family Feud."

[mklsgl]

socrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 03:13 AM, said:

http://www.kentucky....sts-embody.html

I think this guy has an interesting point. What does everyone else think?

What is his point? I read a self-reflexive, unconditionally biased, and completely hypocritical opinion of questionable intellect that only shows his 'Us v. Them' mentality. Interesting? No. Entertaining? No. Pathetic? Yes. That a pastor finds it necessary to speak in condescending terms about atheism being "on the offensive" and preaching advice to that minuscule percentage within the 2% who are actively atheist is certainly not an intelligent or effective idea.

[MARAB0D]

Papagiorgio, on 14 June 2010 - 11:58 AM, said:

The United States is not as full of religious loonies as everyone seems to believe. People are vocal because they want their 15 minutes of fame. Atheists are not on the front lines of some "War of Reason" against evil Fundie Christians all across the U.S. The overly religious nature of americans is a stereotype, and is used by the vocal atheists to get their 15 minutes of fame. Just like the anti christian complaints of the Fundies are used to get their 15 minutes of fame.

I'm just saying.

No, but we go by reality! Could you imagine a Chinese leader saying "we are one nation under God"? Or a French President stating that God ordered him to do something? The things are possible in USA, which are impossible elsewhere, except maybe Saudi Arabia or Iran; the same level! And the Saudis or Iranians are nor all religious loonies at all, I know very advanced people among them - same as among the Americans. It is seen only when we go to big numbers, not on an individual, personal level.

[churchanddestroy]

socrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 03:13 AM, said:

http://www.kentucky....sts-embody.html

I think this guy has an interesting point. What does everyone else think?

 123.JPG   22.56K   42 downloads

I think this picture about sums it up.

[Michelle]

MARAB0D, on 14 June 2010 - 06:15 PM, said:

No, but we go by reality! Could you imagine a Chinese leader saying "we are one nation under God"? Or a French President stating that God ordered him to do something? The things are possible in USA, which are impossible elsewhere, except maybe Saudi Arabia or Iran; the same level! And the Saudis or Iranians are nor all religious loonies at all, I know very advanced people among them - same as among the Americans. It is seen only when we go to big numbers, not on an individual, personal level.

I would rather have them lay all of their cards on the table instead of trying to hide their beliefs.

http://www.telegraph...larist-age.html

[Emma_Acid]

churchanddestroy, on 14 June 2010 - 06:42 PM, said:

123.JPG

I think this picture about sums it up.

I'm not trying to be grandiose, but I don't think anyone considers unicorns a threat to the future of civilisation.

btw Socrates, I'll respond to your post tomorrow, not ignoring ya

Edited by Emma_Acid, 14 June 2010 - 07:58 PM.

[socrates.junior]

mklsgl, on 14 June 2010 - 04:46 PM, said:

What is his point? I read a self-reflexive, unconditionally biased, and completely hypocritical opinion of questionable intellect that only shows his 'Us v. Them' mentality. Interesting? No. Entertaining? No. Pathetic? Yes. That a pastor finds it necessary to speak in condescending terms about atheism being "on the offensive" and preaching advice to that minuscule percentage within the 2% who are actively atheist is certainly not an intelligent or effective idea.

   I'm wondering, in your opinion, was his opinion all that much more self-reflexive and unconditionally biased than your critique of it?

[socrates.junior]

churchanddestroy, on 14 June 2010 - 06:42 PM, said:

123.JPG

I think this picture about sums it up.

   I know, doesn't it? It sums up what the articles said all in one picture and sentence.

Michelle, on 14 June 2010 - 07:04 PM, said:

I would rather have them lay all of their cards on the table instead of trying to hide their beliefs.

http://www.telegraph...larist-age.html

   Doesn't the article explain why someone would try to hide their beliefs? Because they don't want to get labeled "loony" or "crazy." Which is what the eponymous (I know that I stretched the meaning of that word) article was getting at also.

Emma_Acid, on 14 June 2010 - 07:35 PM, said:

I'm not trying to be grandiose, but I don't think anyone considers unicorns a threat to the future of civilisation.

btw Socrates, I'll respond to your post tomorrow, not ignoring ya

    Yep, whenever. And those unicorns....I don't know. They seem a little scary to me.

[mklsgl]

socrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 09:05 PM, said:

I'm wondering, in your opinion, was his opinion all that much more self-reflexive and unconditionally biased than your critique of it?

No; not at all, in fact. My reply is not self-reflexive (I don't talk about myself) or unconditionally biased (I'm not a Christian or an Atheist; my biases are quite conditional).

You didn't answer my question: what is his point?

Edited by mklsgl, 15 June 2010 - 04:36 PM.

[Tiggs]

Interesting. It's an article that criticises broadbrush attacks by broadbrushing a group and accusing them of making them.

No irony there, then.

[socrates.junior]

Hmm, his point couldn't be found in the title, could it?

[socrates.junior]

Tiggs, on 15 June 2010 - 05:18 PM, said:

Interesting. It's an article that criticises broadbrush attacks by broadbrushing a group and accusing them of making them.

No irony there, then.

   It is a little self-serving, I'll admit. But there is much less difference of opinions and ideas that the group in question has, as opposed to the many differences which religion has as a whole.

[Michelle]

socrates.junior, on 14 June 2010 - 09:13 PM, said:

  Doesn't the article explain why someone would try to hide their beliefs? Because they don't want to get labeled "loony" or "crazy." Which is what the eponymous (I know that I stretched the meaning of that word) article was getting at also.

So, it's getting to the point that Christians are afraid to let people know who they are. Isn't that something...gays are coming out of the closet and Christians are going in.

What's wrong with letting people be who they are without judgement and ridicule?