Which part of the God Delusion did you find most offensive?

[Apex]

I would have to say taht the latter is not purer, just different. Each can take the same book and find different interpretations. That doesn't mean that one is more pure than the other, just different. You view the one to be twisted, but the people who adhere to that one would view your interpretation of religion as twisted.

But do you deny social/historical/political reasons as being a large part of it as well?

 

[Magic Man]

But do you deny social/historical/political reasons as being a large part of it as well?

I never denied other such things as being reasons. They might even be as big reasons. That doesn't change the fact that religion would still be considered a reason.

 

[Apex]

I never denied other such things as being reasons. They might even be as big reasons. That doesn't change the fact that religion would still be considered a reason.

I am not saying you did deny it, but you were conveniently ignoring it, whether on purpose or not, when others were pointing out that it played an important, and probably, defining role. In my opinion, and this is my opinion, the underlying reasons are social/historical/political, and religion is simply the conduit which they are most easily played through. However, this does not mean religion is, in and of it self, evil, as some here try to pass off. Religion can only be as evil as the individual person who holds the beliefs.

Religion != Evil
People = Evil

 

[lilithu]

Midnight Blue: for your argument to work, there has to be equivalence between the type of religion that causes stuff like 9/11, and the kind that rarely organises anything more complex than a bake sale.

You view the one to be twisted, but the people who adhere to that one would view your interpretation of religion as twisted.

I have to say that from my twisted pov, I don't really view either as religious.

 

[Smoke]

I view my life as in the service of God, MB. I can't force you to change how tou feel about religion, but I can make you confront the fact that I am a religious person. Whatever effect that has on what you think of me, you need to recognize that and deal with it. Because I am not going to miraculously "see the light." And I imagine that any number of religious folks whom you like and respect are not going to change either.

And when did I ask you to change, Lilithu? I think friendship and respect should be able to survive differences of opinion, even strong ones.

We're not going to make it easy for you to keep your nice neat "religion = bad."

But I never said that all religion was bad, or that every religion is as bad as any other.

In any case, if you really wanted to change my impressions of certain religions, wouldn't it make more sense to address what I've said about them, instead of addressing how my opinions make you feel?

 

[Magic Man]

I have to say that from my twisted pov, I don't really view either as religious.

Well, that is twisted!

That's fine, but he seemed to, and that's what I was responding to.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree that the fact that Dawkins doesn’t acknowledge the more thoughtful intellectual religious position is a critical flaw in his premise and an indication of ignorance on his part. But if he had done this I believe that he could have justified his decision to focus on more mainstream (common) religious expressions.

It is simply ignorant and contemptible to paint mainstream theism, or mainstream theists, with such a tainted brush. It has very much the same quality as ...

of course there are many responsible and intelligent colored people, but ...​

and should be repudiated.

 

[Smoke]

But do you deny social/historical/political reasons as being a large part of it as well?

I notice that believers always ascribe their bigotry and violence to social/political/historical reasons. I wonder why they never ascribe their schools and hospitals to social/political/historical reasons? Anything worthwhile that's done by religious people is seen as proving the value of religion, and any evil that's done by religious people -- even religious people who explicitly insist that they're acting for religious reasons -- is always dismissed as irrelevant to religion.

That kind of hypocrisy is one of the things a lot of people dislike about religion.

 

[lilithu]

In any case, if you really wanted to change my impressions of certain religions, wouldn't it make more sense to address what I've said about them, instead of addressing how my opinions make you feel?

Address what? If you refer to a specific action, then I can address it. If you simply call religion "superstition," how exactly do you expect me to address that?

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

Na-uh...

 

[Magic Man]

I am not saying you did deny it, but you were conveniently ignoring it, whether on purpose or not, when others were pointing out that it played an important, and probably, defining role. In my opinion, and this is my opinion, the underlying reasons are social/historical/political, and religion is simply the conduit which they are most easily played through. However, this does not mean religion is, in and of it self, evil, as some here try to pass off. Religion can only be as evil as the individual person who holds the beliefs.

Religion != Evil
People = Evil

I'm only ignoring it because it's irrelevant right now. The problem is that as soon as I say something like "religion caused 9/11", you take that as "religion is evil", which is far from the interpretation I'm going for. As I've said, religion is not evil, but it does have its problems, and I think that it would be good to be able to examine those problems without the emotional backlash that usually accompanies the examination.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What necessary quality of religion caused 9/11?

 

[logician]

Many theists find any intelligent argument against their beliefs to be offensive, our society has been set up almost not to question a person's religiius beliefs as they are some kind of sacred no-man's land.

 

[Smoke]

Address what? If you refer to a specific action, then I can address it.

Well, some of the things I mentioned that you might have responded to could have been:

1) that the way the Abrahamic religions divide the world in the Elect and the Damned and similar categories is flawed and dangerous,

2) that gathering believers in a big old prayer group does nothing to dispel the kind of superstitious thinking that allows fanatics to think god will reward them for flying a jet into a skyscraper,

3) the fact that "liberal" religion is only liberal in comparison to "conservative" religion; that there is no large Christian denomination in which women and equal to men and homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals; that even the Unitarian Universalist Association manages to accommodate itself an organization as rank and bigoted as the Boy Scouts of America,

4) that Mother Teresa, as an example of the good done by religion, is not very impressive,

and anything else you care to respond to.

 

[lilithu]

1) that the way the Abrahamic religions divide the world in the Elect and the Damned and similar categories is flawed and dangerous,

Gross overgeneralization.

2) that gathering believers in a big old prayer group does nothing to dispel the kind of superstitious thinking that allows fanatics to think god will reward them for flying a jet into a skyscraper,

The purpose of the INTERFAITH prayer group was to encourage and model for people not to give in to hate in response to the attack. Obviously, many people didn't listen.

3) the fact that "liberal" religion is only liberal in comparison to "conservative" religion; that there is no large Christian denomination in which women and equal to men and homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals; that even the Unitarian Universalist Association manages to accommodate itself an organization as rank and bigoted as the Boy Scouts of America,

I can't think of any liberal religion/denomination where women aren't at least as equal to men as they are in secular organizations, and for many they are a great deal more equal. The same with BGLT. The UUA made a decision to stay engaged in conversation with the boyscouts. There are BGLT folk who have their kids in the Scouts. Are you going to condemn them for it too? HRC, and organization supposedly dedicated to BGLT rights, decided to throw transgender folk under a bus with the hate crimes bill. The UUA, which is not exclusively BGLT, held fast to our religious values and demanded inclusive protection.

It's easy to criticize imperfection. I don't see secular groups acting any better. In fact, what I see in liberal secular organizations is a greater propensity to fall into the "us versus them" mentality, whereas UUs and other religious liberals try to hold onto the principle of "love your enemy."

4) that Mother Teresa, as an example of the good done by religion, is not very impressive,

Well that's your opinion. I know she wasn't perfect but unless you are willing to do what she did, then your criticisms are have about as much weight as dandruff. And No, I do not think that Christopher Hitchens is an objective judge of the woman.

Would you care to take shots at Dr. King and Desmond Tutu too?

 

[Smoke]

Gross overgeneralization.

Really? Which of the Abrahamic faiths doesn't do it?

I can't think of any liberal religion/denomination where women aren't at least as equal to men as they are in secular organizations, and for many they are a great deal more equal. The same with BGLT.

The two largest Christian churches in the world prohibit the ordination of women, as do many others, including the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. There is no large Christian denomination, liberal or otherwise, where LGBT people are equal to cisgendered heterosexuals. Liberal Christians are to be commended for questioning the status quo, but I see no reason to commend them for their decision to continue their membership in these discriminatory organizations. The UUA is, of course, much better in this respect than the Christian churches.

The UUA made a decision to stay engaged in conversation with the boyscouts.

More than that, they made a decision to continue participating in the Boy Scouts.

There are BGLT folk who have their kids in the Scouts. Are you going to condemn them for it too?

I don't think morality is different for gay people than for straight people.

HRC, and organization supposedly dedicated to BGLT rights, decided to throw transgender folk under a bus with the hate crimes bill. The UUA, which is not exclusively BGLT, held fast to our religious values and demanded inclusive protection.

That's good. Even religious people do things right sometimes -- especially UUs.

It's easy to criticize imperfection.

I'm not criticizing imperfection. I'm criticizing (among other things) bigotry and exclusion, and the fact that religious people not only condone these things, but perpetuate them in their own private organizations.

I don't see secular groups acting any better. In fact, what I see in liberal secular organizations is a greater propensity to fall into the "us versus them" mentality, whereas UUs and other religious liberals try to hold onto the principle of "love your enemy."

Then why don't you love Richard Dawkins? Why do you put so much energy into dialogue with the bigots in the Boy Scouts of America, and so little into dialogue with people who don't like religion? It seems speaking ill of religion is a much worse offense than treating people badly.

Well that's your opinion. I know she wasn't perfect but unless you are willing to do what she did, then your criticisms are have about as much weight as dandruff.

I can only criticize her actions if I'm willing to perform the very actions I criticize?

And No, I do not think that Christopher Hitchens is an objective judge of the woman.

Christopher Hitchens is not an objective judge of anything.

Would you care to take shots at Dr. King and Desmond Tutu too?

No, there are some good Christians. It's easy to recognize them; they're the ones enraging the other Christians.

 

[kai]

the point is ,its easy to criticize the god delusion its out there go for it, not the same with holy scripture we have been programed to give it respect to the extreme of martyrdom. thats what Dawkins and co are all about stripping away the feeling of blasphemy to question. its still not time for mankind to attempt this when half of it is still living with a medieval mindset. the cry of" burn him "is still there. and so is martyrdom

 

[Joe_Stocks]

I am not sure if this was already said, but I found, not so much offensive, as absurd when he said that raising your child to be a member of a particular religion was a form of child abuse.

 

[kai]

I am not sure if this was already said, but I found, not so much offensive, as absurd when he said that raising your child to be a member of a particular religion was a form of child abuse.

there is just such a thread on that somewhere.

 

[Smoke]

I am not sure if this was already said, but I found, not so much offensive, as absurd when he said that raising your child to be a member of a particular religion was a form of child abuse.

I think it depends on the religion.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi MB,

I think it depends on the religion.

Good point, although I believe he was talking about parents raising their children to be Christian (which would include places like the U.S. and Western Europe, among many others).