Surprising lack of knowledge among theists.

[Magic Man]

"If you understood, then you would agree with me. If you don't agree with me, it means you don't understand."

OK, let me put it another way. If you understood it, you shouldn't be offended by it. You're very intelligent, and I know you can understand it, it's not that hard. The problem is that you refuse to see it as anything but an insult. Again, criticizing an idea is not an insult, criticizing a person can be.

 

[lilithu]

OK, let me put it another way. If you understood it, you shouldn't be offended by it.

Gee, somehow that sounds exactly the same.

 

[Magic Man]

Gee, somehow that sounds exactly the same.

Somehow I figured it would to you. The bottom line is that it's not an insult. It's an analogy that shows how religion works much like a virus does. I'm sorry you and others are offended by it, but it doesn't mean that religion is all bad.

 

[lilithu]

Somehow I figured it would to you.

And somehow I figured it wouldn't to you.

Again, I am amazed how Dawkins' supporters keep accusing his critics of bias without seeming to reflect that it could go both ways.

 

[Smoke]

"I believe in..." is not "I intellectually assent," as you put it. It's "I have faith in...", "I put my trust in..."

Well, it's true that there might be an element of trust implied in the Creeds, but considering that they consist of a lot of statements that are supposed to factual, relating to the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, baptism, etc., it would be a mistake to think that intellectual assent isn't a big part of the meaning, and even the primary meaning.

And I take it that kind of sentence it not meant to be insulting either. :sarcastic

I recognize that some people might find it insulting, but it's not "meant to be" insulting; that is, I don't say it for the purpose of insulting, but because it's a simple way to express my carefully considered opinion about it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

When I get hit I turn the other cheek. And I am not a Christian either.

I would not be surprised. There are many who CLAIM to be Christians who are not, and some who claim to NOT be a Christian who are. It's more about how you view/serve people than it is about your specific declaration of who is the Christ.

No, I don't think that even the Apostles caught on to this little wrinkle, but they were getting there.

 

[lilithu]

Well, it's true that there might be an element of trust implied in the Creeds, but considering that they consist of a lot of statements that are supposed to factual, relating to the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, baptism, etc., it would be a mistake to think that intellectual assent isn't a big part of the meaning, and even the primary meaning.

As more than one minister and/or theologian has said, looking at Christianity that way is missing the point by about a foot and a half.

I recognize that some people might find it insulting, but it's not "meant to be" insulting; that is, I don't say it for the purpose of insulting, but because it's a simple way to express my carefully considered opinion about it.

And that makes it ok? Because I guarantee you that others have said things that you find highly insulting, not for the purpose of being insulting, but because they believe it to be true.

 

[Magic Man]

And somehow I figured it wouldn't to you.

Again, I am amazed how Dawkins' supporters keep accusing his critics of bias without seeming to reflect that it could go both ways.

If you mean that the meaning could go both ways, then I see how it could. But, just like MB's last statement, the point of the analogy is not to insult, even if it has that effect on some people. That is why you shouldn't be offended, if you understand it.

If you mean that both parties have biases, then of course I realize they do. I never said I'm without bias. I just think I do a good job of realizing it and admitting it. I say things like "It might just be my bias..." fairly often.

 

[lilithu]

But, just like MB's last statement, the point of the analogy is not to insult, even if it has that effect on some people. That is why you shouldn't be offended, if you understand it.

You can keep saying that and I can keep being flabbergasted by it. You are essentially saying "You don't have the right to to be offended by something that offends you." Talk about presumptuous.

 

[Magic Man]

You can keep saying that and I can keep being flabbergasted by it. You are essentially saying "You don't have the right to to be offended by something that offends you." Talk about presumptuous.

No, you have the right. I'll never deny that. I just don't think you should. You have the right to run your car into a tree, but I don't think you should.

 

[Smoke]

And that makes it ok? Because I guarantee you that others have said things that you find highly insulting, not for the purpose of being insulting, but because they believe it to be true.

And if I were as thin-skinned about it as you are on behalf of the people I was referring to, I'd have been curled up in fetal position for the last thirty years. If you must resort to the cheap tactic of changing the subject to the possibility of feelings that might be potentially hurt, I can only assume that you have no concrete or rational response to the statement.

 

[lilithu]

And if I were as thin-skinned about it as you are on behalf of the people I was referring to, I'd have been curled up in fetal position for the last thirty years. If you must resort to the cheap tactic of changing the subject to the possibility of feelings that might be potentially hurt, I can only assume that you have no concrete or rational response to the statement.

I was trying to frame the matter in a way where you might empathize. But now we're reduced to name-calling... again, so that's the end of that.

 

[Autodidact]

I was a biologist. I'm pretty sure I understand the analogy.

It is amazing to me that Dawkins' supporters dare say that people are closed-minded for not wanting to continue listening to the justifications for the insult. And even more amazing that people dare say that it's not an insult. YOU don't find it insulting because you agree with him. Just like any number of statements that I and others have listed in order to show the level of disrespect shown, only to have people say "That's not disrespectful; it's the truth."

It's not an insult. It's a way to analyse and understand how ideas, any ideas, including religions, spread and survive. That's all. His point is not that religion makes you sick, but that religions survive and reproduce because they have certain features and lack others. For example, the Shakers are no longer with us in part because they practiced celibacy. It's not about whether their beliefs were correct, but about how they did or not contribute to that particular meme's ability to reproduce.

 

[Autodidact]

I appreciate the support, truly. But I'd rather not have this thread become an argument about that.

SIMG,
I agree that my comment was unnecessary and unproductive. I apologize.

Being a "religion of the heart" is not a claim that the adherents of the religion are always good. It simply means that it is more based on emotion than reason. And no, that doesn't mean it's hostile to reason, only that reason is not the basis.

It does have a strain that is hostile to reason, though, the Martin Luther strain.

 

[Autodidact]

I would not be surprised. There are many who CLAIM to be Christians who are not, and some who claim to NOT be a Christian who are. It's more about how you view/serve people than it is about your specific declaration of who is the Christ.

No, I don't think that even the Apostles caught on to this little wrinkle, but they were getting there.

So all those people who CLAIM to be Christians and are not, what is going on there? Lying? Confusion? Delusion? How is this happening, and why would they do that?

And explain to me about people who CLAIM not to be Christian but actually are. How does that work?

In short, what is a Christian?

 

[Autodidact]

You can keep saying that and I can keep being flabbergasted by it. You are essentially saying "You don't have the right to to be offended by something that offends you." Talk about presumptuous.

It might help if you understood that the "virus" analogy has nothing to do with whether the idea or philosophy is good or bad. Liberty is a virus. So is equality. Also Marxism, Zionism and Atheism. They're all viruses, for the purposes of this mode of analysis. It has nothing to do with whether the idea in question is good, or even true. Well, goodness and truth could sometimes be evolutionarily beneficial to an idea, so it has something to do with that, but not primarily.

 

[lilithu]

It does have a strain that is hostile to reason, though, the Martin Luther strain.

Actually, despite the quote that you gave, Luther was instrumental in lifting up reason. It was part of his argument for why individuals didn't need intermediaries such as the clergy to have a relationship with God. He argued that people could read the bible for themselves and understand it for themselves. That necessitates the ability to reason. He just didn't think reason should be lifted above faith.

 

[Willamena]

And that makes it ok?

Actually.... yeah.

 

[lilithu]

Actually.... yeah.

Then for you it's ok. That doesn't make it ok for others. I don't think it's any more unreasonable for theist to take offense at their God being referred to as an "imaginary friend" than for atheists to be offended by suggestions that one needs to believe in God to be moral.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually, despite the quote that you gave, Luther was instrumental in lifting up reason. It was part of his argument for why individuals didn't need intermediaries such as the clergy to have a relationship with God. He argued that people could read the bible for themselves and understand it for themselves. That necessitates the ability to reason. He just didn't think reason should be lifted above faith.

I don't have a lot of personal knowledge about this, but I don't think so. As we have been discussing, that personal relationship does not have to be based on reason or even knowledge of scripture. Christianity is an egalitarian, heart-based religion not dependent on reason or academic knowledge.

I don't think you can construe Martin Luther as one who favored reason, he seems to have had strong feelings against it:

Martin Luther on reason:

Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed ...

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight...

Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.


Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason.