Dawkins!

[Sententia]

I believe in life we can see. I believe in evolution in the same way I believe in earth and rock. Dawkins argues much along the same lines. If facts were revealed tomorrow that proved evolution to be false then a new alternate theory would then be accepted and evolution would be forgotten. Make sense? Believing in god is a very different kind of belief. One with no proof or evidence. Its faith. And I have no problem with faith but why people argue for it to be more is beyond me.

God to me is a scientific theory and one that explains nothing. It seems lazy.

Me: Where did we come from?

Theist: God did it! There done.

Me: Well ok... but there is this alternate theory here that speaks about evolution and evolving over time.

Theist: Ok... Where does science fail?

Me: Well they only have theories on the beginning of the universe... we are trying to explore that now.

Theist: Don't bother god did it.

Me: Hmmm... I am detecting a pattern. Ok. Who is god, why did he do all this and where do you derive your information.

Theist: Everywhere. Some from books some from direct conversations with god. Its really just common sense. The glory of god can be seen in every star and other shiny things it can be felt as warmth on your skin on a perfect summer day, it can warm your soul in times of stress and during the difficulties in life... *looks around* Where did he go?

I always ask this question to religious people. What is the purpose of the theory of god?

 

[matthew.william]

Well, what are your issues? You keep saying he's a bigot. Other than criticizing the basic foundation of religion, what exactly does he do or say that's bigoted? Does he say that Christians shouldn't be allowed to breed or adopt children? Does he say that anyone who believes in God is stupid? Does he say that all Muslims are evil, or that Hindus should be rounded up and gassed? Does he advocate for laws discriminating against religious people? Can you point me to examples of this alleged bigotry?

"I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." Lest his readers misunderstand him, or dismiss this rather shocking statement as mere off-the-cuff hyperbole, Dawkins goes on to clarify his position. "I am persuaded," he explains, "that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell." {From The New Republic**

~matthew.william~

 

[lilithu]

If you believe someone is delusional and you say so, is that the same thing as disrespecting them?

Bottom line, this is the crux of the argument, and why the lines always get drawn the same way each time.

If you agree with the statement, then you think that Dawkins is just stating the "truth" and therefore people who are offended are "irrational" to be offended, thus proving the "truth" of the original assertion.

If you don't agree with the statement, then you think that Dawkins is stating an unflattering untruth. In other words, calling people whom he disagrees with names.

 

[Autodidact]

Then I would say you misunderstand what "delusion" means, at best. Delusion is a false belief strongly held in the face of invalidating evidence. There is no invalidating evidence for belief in God.

Are you sure? Tell me what God you believe in.

 

[Autodidact]

"I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." Lest his readers misunderstand him, or dismiss this rather shocking statement as mere off-the-cuff hyperbole, Dawkins goes on to clarify his position. "I am persuaded," he explains, "that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell." {From The New Republic**

~matthew.william~

O.K., still looking for that bigotry. Or are you saying that claiming that brainwashing children into religious indoctrination is child abuse is bigotry? Doesn't sound like any definition of bigotry I'm familiar with.

 

[Autodidact]

Bottom line, this is the crux of the argument, and why the lines always get drawn the same way each time.

If you agree with the statement, then you think that Dawkins is just stating the "truth" and therefore people who are offended are "irrational" to be offended, thus proving the "truth" of the original assertion.

If you don't agree with the statement, then you think that Dawkins is stating an unflattering untruth. In other words, calling people whom he disagrees with names.

Or you might think that his opinion is wrong, but does not represent bigotry, only his opinion about the truth.

 

[Autodidact]

Then I would say you misunderstand what "delusion" means, at best. Delusion is a false belief strongly held in the face of invalidating evidence. There is no invalidating evidence for belief in God.

What about a false belief strongly held in the face of no supporting evidence?

 

[Magic Man]

"I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." Lest his readers misunderstand him, or dismiss this rather shocking statement as mere off-the-cuff hyperbole, Dawkins goes on to clarify his position. "I am persuaded," he explains, "that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell." {From The New Republic**

~matthew.william~

I would disagree on the point that the sexual abuse is less than the other abuse. However, I don't see what's wrong with saying that indoctrinating children with ideas like that of hell is abuse. It has extremely long-lasting psychological effects. For instance, a member here just recently declared himself an atheist after a lifetime of struggling with and being stressed about the idea of God looking over his shoulder every second, and the threat of Hell. This is not uncommon. I'd say that kind of psychological effect is on par with most other kinds of abuse.

 

[Storm]

Are you sure? Tell me what God you believe in.

1) I don't want to hijack this thread. If you wish to understand my beliefs, please go to the explanatory thread linked in my sig.
2) It's irrelevant. There is no invalidating evidence for any God-concept I'm aware of.

 

[sandandfoam]

I'd say that kind of psychological effect is on par with most other kinds of abuse.

Do you (or for that matter Dawkins) really think religious indoctrination is on a par with the rape of children?

 

[Storm]

What about a false belief strongly held in the face of no supporting evidence?

1) That's not delusion. Delusion is a highly specific word. To use it as Dawkins does is incorrect at best, bigoted at worst. (FTR, I am not calling Dawkins a bigot.)

2) To say that there's no supporting evidence is itself arguable. Personally, I see the countless reports of personal experience as evidence. It's not compelling when second-hand, but it is evidence.

I would further argue that the person having the experience has compelling evidence to believe in God.

 

[Autodidact]

1) I don't want to hijack this thread. If you wish to understand my beliefs, please go to the explanatory thread linked in my sig.
2) It's irrelevant. There is no invalidating evidence for any God-concept I'm aware of.

Well there's lots of invalidating evidence for any God-concept who answers prayers, since prayer doesn't work. Therefore, if you believe in a God that does answer prayers, you hold a false belief in the face of overwhelming invalidating evidence, i.e., a delusion. I submit that most religionists do believe that their God answers their prayers, despite all evidence to the contrary. Ergo, most religionists are delusional.

 

[Magic Man]

Do you (or for that matter Dawkins) really think religious indoctrination is on a par with the rape of children?

It can be, yes. It can lead people to commit suicide, and cause deep psychological problems as any abuse can. Generally, I would say that most cases of chid rape are worse than most cases of religious indoctrination, but in the same way that most cases of child rape are worse than most cases of any kind of abuse.

 

[Autodidact]

Do you (or for that matter Dawkins) really think religious indoctrination is on a par with the rape of children?

I submit to you that those children allowed the priests to molest them and not report it for years--specifically because of their religious indoctrination.

 

[Storm]

Well there's lots of invalidating evidence for any God-concept who answers prayers, since prayer doesn't work. Therefore, if you believe in a God that does answer prayers, you hold a false belief in the face of overwhelming invalidating evidence, i.e., a delusion. I submit that most religionists do believe that their God answers their prayers, despite all evidence to the contrary. Ergo, most religionists are delusional.

Actually, no, that argument is easily dismissed with the standard "sometimes the answer is no."

This is why one should study theology before attacking it (or its expression, religion): to formulate effective arguments.

 

[Valjean]

1) That's not delusion. Delusion is a highly specific word. To use it as Dawkins does is incorrect at best, bigoted at worst. (FTR, I am not calling Dawkins a bigot.)

2) To say that there's no supporting evidence is itself arguable. Personally, I see the countless reports of personal experience as evidence. It's not compelling when second-hand, but it is evidence.

I would further argue that the person having the experience has compelling evidence to believe in God.

But personal experience is evidence only to the experiencer.

 

[matthew.william]

Not if it was regarding an idea we were discussing, no. To be bigotry, you have to express ideas of prejudice and intolerance toward a group of people.

So, if you make negative blanket statements about a group of people based on your own viewpoints, it's not bigotry? Really? Egads, I must get a new dictionary!

I think that brainwashing little children into believing that if they don't believe, love and obey a non-existent God is morally wrong. I wish that no one did it, and that all the religionists would stop.

Yeah, well that's just what you believe. Deal. Why are your views more moral than mine?

Isn't it obvious? Everyone believes that their religion is objectively true and correct.

Don't you believe your views are 100% true and correct, and that mine are wrong?

But it just so happens that people who share that belief are those who were brainwashed into it as little children.

What type of household were you raised in?

They don't believe in their religion because of the evidence in its favor

Blanket statement, and frankly, insulting. Define evidence, or better yet, what type of evidence would you think it should be.

If they had been raised in Peshawar, they would just as fervently believe that Islam was true. It's not because of any objective criteria for truth, such as evidence; they believe what they were taught to believe as children

Yeah, and if you were raised in Italy, you'd probably be Catholic, and if you were raised in the Soviet Union, probably and atheist, and if you happened to be raised in Upper Wisconsin, might just be Amish.

The vast majority of the planet are religious in some sense, and the children are generally raised in the same religion as their parents. If you had a child, you would probably raise them atheist, correct? Why do you get that right, and I don't? Because you're sure you're right?

I can't believe that's a controversial statement. Why do you think the most telling predictor of someone's religious belief is what religion they were raised in?

It wasn't controversial, but it came off as insulting to me.

~matthew.william~

 

[Sunstone]

I think we all need to agree on at least one thing here. Namely, that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I deeply feel that if we first agree to that one indisputable ground rule, then we can make some genuine progress here. Thank you.

 

[Storm]

But personal experience is evidence only to the experiencer.

I would alter that to "compelling evidence." Anecdotal evidence may not be worth a hill of beans, but it does qualify as evidence. Which is, of course, not to argue that anyone should be onvinced by it.

 

[sandandfoam]

I submit to you that those children allowed the priests to molest them and not report it for years--specifically because of their religious indoctrination.

What do you base that on? putting responsibility on victims of rape, particularly children, for their rape seems like a peculiar stance.