Why faith is evil

[ellenjanuary]

So, on the one hand you're accusing atheists of being solely to blame for promulgating their own stereotypes, then you yourself promulgate an atheist stereotype.

You kind of just invalidated your own argument.


And what negative stereotype of atheists does he promulgate?

NOTE: Only actual claims or opinions held by Dawkins can be used in response to this question.

Oh, here we go with the lawyers... When the religious fool answers all questions with a single word... that ain't enough. It's gotta be codified and classified and conceptualized - into something like the Arizona Revised Statutes - where real-world authority can still say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

NOTE: The "sin" of Dawkins is in establishing a "crusade for atheism."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh, here we go with the lawyers... When the religious fool answers all questions with a single word... that ain't enough. It's gotta be codified and classified and conceptualized - into something like the Arizona Revised Statutes - where real-world authority can still say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

NOTE: The "sin" of Dawkins is in establishing a "crusade for atheism."

You haven't answered my question (or met my criteria for answering the question). What's more, I can barely tell what point you're trying to make. Could you possibly try again?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Blind faith in statistics? That makes no sense. That's like saying "blind faith in evidence". If you require evidence in order to accept something, then how can it be "blind faith"?

My respect for atheism and the scientific method is partly based upon the opinions of experts working in their chosen fields. As a mathematician, what I said makes perfect sense; yet from trying to teach mathematics, what I can explain resides mostly in another's previous education. And mostly math puts people to sleep, so...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My respect for atheism and the scientific method is partly based upon the opinions of experts working in their chosen fields. As a mathematician, what I said makes perfect sense; yet from trying to teach mathematics, what I can explain resides mostly in another's previous education. And mostly math puts people to sleep, so...

Just about everything you seem to say as a response to other posters appears to be a non sequitur. Is there something that I'm missing? Could you run through, in layman's terms, the responses to my arguments?

 

[ellenjanuary]

You haven't answered my question (or met my criteria for answering the question). What's more, I can barely tell what point you're trying to make. Could you possibly try again?

See what I'm saying? Thou hast not met my criteria for answering My question, therefore thou does not exist...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

See what I'm saying? Thou hast not met my criteria for answering My question, therefore thou does not exist...

Oh, you exist, you've just provided no justification for your opinion. Therefore I can happily dismiss your opinion as being uninformed until such justification materializes.

 

[Quagmire]

The angry atheist.

My favourite

But anger is an atheist's stock-in-trade. It's the wind in his sails. So it's not so much negative as unpleasant and tiresome and predictable.

Considering the almost complete lack off integrity on the part of some of the people they wind up debating against, I would say a little anger is understandable.

 

[ChristineES]

Its all good

If i cant take it I wouldnt dish it out. My problem is to much fast typing. [ya thats it]

scores are lower due to society.

when I speak of education and creationism theres just a direct tie to ones education level. creation may be tied to christianity but not all christians follow creationism.

I am a Christian, but I also love science. I loved watching Cosmos when I was a kid (before I became a Christian) and then I watched it again as an adult and found I still love it.

 

[outhouse]

I am a Christian, but I also love science. I loved watching Cosmos when I was a kid (before I became a Christian) and then I watched it again as an adult and found I still love it.

I was raised christian and nuns were my teachers for many years.

I have a love for science as well

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually, if you select your sample in a statistically valid way and carry out your observations properly, absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.

Any random sample of a population is, within a certain confidence interval, a measure of the population as a whole. If you pull ten jellybeans out of a jar and none of them are blue, then this is evidence (not absolute proof, but evidence) that there are no blue jellybeans in the jar.

The same applies to gods: if you have some set of hypothetical characteristics for a god that allow you to predict things that you can observe, then a set of negative observations is evidence that such a god does not exist; you can be confident (within the confidence interval of your test) that this god really doesn't exist.

When it's malfunctioning, sure. Perfectly healthy people who are not on drugs have no reason to suspect this is happening.

I strongly disagree with this. The human brain is not a perfect instrument; it can easily be fooled... and easily fool itself.

There's a reason why the police and others try to get witness statements as soon as possible after the event, and why they tell people not to discuss what they saw with others. Human beings often see things that aren't really there, and our memory introduces a whole other layer of uncertainty, since our memories of an event don't even match our flawed original perception of it.

I know that I create false memories... I even had my tendency to do this measured in an experiment once (for my sister the psych student). I was perfectly healthy and not on drugs - I was only under the influence of an orange-flavoured drink that contained either aspartame or sugar (the experiment was on the relationship between blood sugar and false memories). Still, my brain created plenty of things that just hadn't happened... and from what I learned afterward, I'm perfectly normal in that regard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And at this point you will support your arguement by presenting the
harmonious, peaceful glories of the shining light examples of faith free/religion free societies?-

Nth Korea, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot and the entire Soviet Union and satellite States.....
In which nobody ever went hungry, nobody was imprisoned, persecuted or killed (for their faith or politics) and Godless society shone like a beacon to the world.....

Stupidity, bigotry and bastardry are not conditions confined exclusively to people of faith.....clearly, on the historical evidence of the 20th Century, anybody, including atheists, can be mad despotic murdering Aholes.

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism" Vladimir Lenin.

:sarcastic

You may not be able to have Marxism without atheism, but you can certainly have atheism without Marxism.

The practices of Stalin or Mao are abhorrent to me. There is more moral and philosophical distance between my point of view and theirs than there is from my point of view to that of the most ardent Christian Evangelical Fundamentalist.

And I think the examples you gave actually serve the point in the OP: the problem is unquestioning acceptance of doctrine and dogma, period. Sometimes that takes the form of belief in God, but other times it takes the form of belief in the principles of Maoism or the worship of Kim Il-Sun and his family.

In either case, the solution is the same: to demand that beliefs be justified if they're going to be enshrined in society, government or the law. You want to hand control of the state over to a church? Justify it. You want to make it illegal to be a capitalist? Justify it. The exact same principle applies: until an idea is justified, I should be entirely free to believe the opposite, and to act on my belief.

The problem that Dawkins calls attention to in the OP is that we tend to accept "faith" as a substitute for actual justification for actions that have real (and often negative) effects on society.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I'm a big fan of Mythbusters and an avid Sci-Fi fan. Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, Lexx, Dr. Who, etc.

And I have lot of black friends!

 

[Midnight Pete]

:sarcastic

You may not be able to have Marxism without atheism, but you can certainly have atheism without Marxism.

The practices of Stalin or Mao are abhorrent to me. There is more moral and philosophical distance between my point of view and theirs than there is from my point of view to that of the most ardent Christian Evangelical Fundamentalist.

And I think the examples you gave actually serve the point in the OP: the problem is unquestioning acceptance of doctrine and dogma, period. Sometimes that takes the form of belief in God, but other times it takes the form of belief in the principles of Maoism or the worship of Kim Il-Sun and his family.

In either case, the solution is the same: to demand that beliefs be justified if they're going to be enshrined in society, government or the law. You want to hand control of the state over to a church? Justify it. You want to make it illegal to be a capitalist? Justify it. The exact same principle applies: until an idea is justified, I should be entirely free to believe the opposite, and to act on my belief.

The problem that Dawkins calls attention to in the OP is that we tend to accept "faith" as a substitute for actual justification for actions that have real (and often negative) effects on society.

So when you distance yourself from Mao and Lenin, it's legitimate. But when Christians distance themselves from Fred Phelps and Jim Jones, it's not?

How convenient for you.

 

[ChristineES]

I'm a big fan of Mythbusters and an avid Sci-Fi fan. Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, Lexx, Dr. Who, etc.

And I have lot of black friends!

This is off topic. I once went to a Christian forum and I wrote a post about being a fan of Star Trek, and a guy said that "Trekkies go to hell, too". Suffice it to say, I stopped posting at that site. :biglaugh:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So when you distance yourself from Mao and Lenin, it's legitimate. But when Christians distance themselves from Fred Phelps and Jim Jones, it's not?

How convenient for you.

When did I say that, exactly? :sarcastic

 

[Magic Man]

So when you distance yourself from Mao and Lenin, it's legitimate. But when Christians distance themselves from Fred Phelps and Jim Jones, it's not?

How convenient for you.

Not to speak for Penguin, but the only thing Mao and I have in common is the lack of belief in a god. We also probably both lack a belief in leprechauns and many other beings. The two of us being atheists means no more than the two of us being guys who don't dress in women's clothing. My being an atheist says nothing about beliefs I do hold. Being a Christian tends to imply certain beliefs that are shared by other Christians.

 

[Midnight Pete]

This is off topic. I once went to a Christian forum and I wrote a post about being a fan of Star Trek, and a guy said that "Trekkies go to hell, too". Suffice it to say, I stopped posting at that site. :biglaugh:

Trekkies go to hell? :faint:

 

[Autodidact]

Unless you have private eyes follow her 24 7, you don't have hard data. And if you do, well, that's the perfect illustration of faith being a good thing.

The direction I see you going here, and this is what I'm arguing against, is to say that either you have absolute, bullet-proof knowledge, or you have nothing, and anyone can believe whatever they like. What I'm saying is that for most things, what we have is belief based on evidence. My confidence in V's choice to be physically intimate with only me is in this category. I could be mistaken, but probably am not, because of the many different kinds of evidence that I have, and because this hypothesis fits with all the facts I have and explains them. This is empirical knowledge or belief, and is what I'm advocating for.

Remember, the OP and Pete are talking about belief not based on evidence. (btw, I don't think sneaking in the adjective "hard" and hoping I wouldn't notice adds anything particularly helpful to the discussion.)

So this confidence I have in V is NOT the same as religious faith, although we often use the same word, faith. I am NOT arguing against confidence in people, methods or beliefs that ARE based on evidence. I am arguing against belief NOT based on evidence.

You know, you can play all the word games you like, it's still just demonizing people who disagree with you.

It certainly is not. First, it's not demonizing anyone. It's condemning a methodology. It's not the outcome or opinion I'm condemning, it's the method. I think that method can lead to dangerous results, with no way to correct them. Since the belief is not based on evidence or logic, arguing with evidence and logic is powerless to persuade the people who hold them. And as we all know well, that can lead to very bad outcomes.

Pot, have you met my friend kettle?

Arguing with people on the internet is nothing like burning them at the stake, or torturing them until they claim to agree with you. It's the precise opposite--an open forum that permits free expression for all. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as advocating against their right to their opinion. I'm disappointed that either you don't see that, or understand it and are deliberately conflating things that are so different.

 

[Autodidact]

Just God.




No. God existed long before there was anyone to recognize Him.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ...

Apparently you consider unsupported assertion a form of argument. This is exactly the sort of thing the OP is arguing against.

 

[Autodidact]

Faith is indeed evil when it leads to suicide-bombings and torture and genocide and things of that nature.

Faith is not evil when it leads to redemption, healing, altruism, love, compassion, mercy, and fellowship.

There is definitely a Dark Side but that doesn't negate the existence of a Light Side.


:sw:

Why do you think faith often leads to evil actions? What do you think is the source of that problem?

If someone asserts that God wants them to force Jews to convert or be beheaded, how do you argue against that?