Why faith is evil

[Midnight Pete]

Could you give an example?

I don't think you'd accept any of my criticisms. :no:

 

[Midnight Pete]

In the context of this thread, the question would be: do you share their methodology. I am advocating against the methodology which I believe is shared by religionists and Marxists. I would even say that the reason both can lead to evil actions is that they share this methodology--a willingness to proceed without or even in the face of evidence.

What is the methedology you ascribe to both Phelps/Jones and Mao/Lenin?

What would you say if told you that that belief vs. unbelief is not the final arbiter of human behaviour?

 

[Autodidact]

People who achieve higher and better circumstances in life do so by believing for them and acting accordingly even though all evidence around them will say otherwise.
This separates those who do achieve dreams from those who allow life circumstances to dictate them.

Sometimes. And sometimes they end up bankrupt or dead. I think they would be better off investigating the evidence before deciding to devote their lives to a goal, myself. And if they evidence starts to indicate that they're wrong, they should probably give up their effort to patent the perpetual motion machine.

 

[Autodidact]

This is true whether the beliefs are based in faith or fear which is far more dangerous.

The faith, as defined here, does two bad things. One is that it leads people to fear things for no reason--because they don't need evidence. Two, it prevents anyone from alleviating their fear and de-escalating their violence, because they already "know" (with no evidence) that the Other is evil, and no amount of evidence can dissuade them. After all, Satan is a dissembler. So faith is a significant component of the problem.

 

[newhope101]

I like the way Dawkins talks through his butt only seeing the worst of religious beliefs. I note the boofhead did not make mention of the thousand and millions of volunteers and charity workers throughout the world that assist the needy, let alone missions that also assist many people, in the name of faith. These terrorists do not reflect the beliefs of Islam at all, and well most of you know it. Yet many of you are prepared to enter into this banter. Any fool should know the difference between Islam and terrorists.

Dawkins, despite all his education, appears to have a very narrow view of the world of religion, seeking the minority of religionists to bolster his assumptions. A tactic of desperation and hatred. I think Dawkins is Evil. His are not insightfull words. Rather they expose a narrow minded looser with an axe to grind.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't think you'd accept any of my criticisms. :no:

It's not about me, Pete, it's about your argument and whether it is sound or not.

 

[Autodidact]

What is the methedology you ascribe to both Phelps/Jones and Mao/Lenin?

Belief not based on evidence. You know, the subject of this thread.

btw, I can't recall, but if you're a mainstream Christian, and especially if you're Calvinist, you may be surprised at how much you share with Rev. Phelps.

What would you say if told you that that belief vs. unbelief is not the final arbiter of human behaviour?

I'd say I don't understand what you mean.

I do think that people's beliefs have a huge impact on their actions. Do you agree?

 

[Midnight Pete]

Dawkins does have an axe to grind. You can tell it's a personal jihad.

 

[Autodidact]

I like the way Dawkins talks through his butt only seeing the *** of religious beliefs. I note the boofhead did not make mention of the thousand and millions of volunteers and charity workers throughout the world that assist the needy, let alone missions that also assist many people, in the name of faith. These terrorists do not reflect the beliefs of Islam at all, and well most of you know it. Yet many of you are prepared to enter into this banter. Any fool should know the difference between Islam and terrorists.

Dawkins, despite all his education, appears to have a very narrow view of the world of religion, seeking the minority of religionists to bolster his assumptions. A tactic of desperation and hatred. I think Dawkins is Evil. His are not insightfull words. Rather they expose a narrow minded looser with an axe to grind.

So basically you're incapable of reasoned argument, and can only emply ad hominem attacks? Did you know they're a fallacy? But thanks for demonstrating the paucity of religionist logic.

 

[Autodidact]

Dawkins does have an axe to grind. You can tell it's a personal jihad.

He has a goal. He believes in fighting for it with logic, reason, public debate, rather than with weapons or coerscion. Is there some reason he should not advocate his position?

 

[Midnight Pete]

Newhope had a few ad homs mixed in there but the observation that Dawkins has a very narrow and selective view of religion is legitimate. I would add that Dawkin's jihad against all things religious is maybe not as academic as it seems. I would say it's more personal than academic.

 

[Autodidact]

Newhope had a few ad homs mixed in there but the observation that Dawkins has a very narrow and selective view of religion is legitimate. I would add that Dawkin's jihad against all things religious is maybe not as academic as it seems. I would say it's more personal than academic.

In what way do you think Professor Dawkins view of religion is incorrect? For example, in the OP he decried the practice of belief without evidence, which you admit you engage in. I didn't say academic. What I said is, rather than organize an army or plant bombs, Prof. Dawkins writes books and gives talks. Would more people used his methods to advance their goals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I like the way Dawkins talks through his butt only seeing the worst of religious beliefs. I note the boofhead did not make mention of the thousand and millions of volunteers and charity workers throughout the world that assist the needy, let alone missions that also assist many people, in the name of faith.

Of course he wouldn't. Good works can be justified without religion; it's only works that aren't good that appeal to faith for justification.

If your religion prompts you to help the needy, great. But when someone asks you why you should be allowed to do that, you can respond with "it helps people" or "it benefits society" along with "it's my faith". The issue that Dawkins describes in the OP arises when an action can't be justified except for appealing to the value of "faith".

You don't need to place any value on faith whatsoever to appreciate religiously motivated charity. All you need to value is charity itself.

 

[Copernicus]

I like the way Dawkins talks through his butt only seeing the worst of religious beliefs. I note the boofhead did not make mention of the thousand and millions of volunteers and charity workers throughout the world that assist the needy, let alone missions that also assist many people, in the name of faith. These terrorists do not reflect the beliefs of Islam at all, and well most of you know it. Yet many of you are prepared to enter into this banter. Any fool should know the difference between Islam and terrorists.

Dawkins, despite all his education, appears to have a very narrow view of the world of religion, seeking the minority of religionists to bolster his assumptions. A tactic of desperation and hatred. I think Dawkins is Evil. His are not insightfull words. Rather they expose a narrow minded looser with an axe to grind.

Whatever personality flaws Dawkins has, your own vitriolic attacks on his character tell us more about you than him. Your reaction has been to ignore the topic and go after what you regard as the source of information. That is a fallacious ad hominem argument called "poisoning the well".

Dawkins does have an axe to grind. You can tell it's a personal jihad.

Again, "poisoning the well". You have also attacked atheists by attempting to link them to atrocities committed by Communists in the name of Communism, not atheism.

What I would say about this thread is that I do not really regard religious faith as evil in itself. It can undermine morality by spreading the idea that a divine (or secular) authority dictates right and wrong. The Communist Party has set itself up as the moral authority. Any action dictated by the Party is good on the grounds that it advances the needs of humanity, as dictated by the Party.

Quite often, people of religious faith get themselves into the same moral bind. Consider the behavior of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, when faced with evidence of priests molesting children. The reaction was to cover up the facts in order to preserve the reputation of the Church, which overrode the immorality of what the pedophile priests were doing.

 

[Midnight Pete]

In what way do you think Professor Dawkins view of religion is incorrect? For example, in the OP he decried the practice of belief without evidence, which you admit you engage in. I didn't say academic. What I said is, rather than organize an army or plant bombs, Prof. Dawkins writes books and gives talks. Would more people used his methods to advance their goals.

His view is selective! He drills down on the negative aspects of religion and makes it seem like that's all there is to say about it. And FYI the people who organize armies and plant bombs are past the point of civilized discussion, no matter who they are what their cause is.

Am thankful that Richard Dawkins is using non-violent methods to advance his views? Heck, yes! AFAIK, no anti-theist violence has been traced back to Dawkins himself. It's his followers I'm more worried about. It's always some lone unhinged individual that does something crazy. Whenever I walk by my church I wonder if it's going to get vandalized or burned down. I've read news stories of pastors being shot by gun-toting maniacs in the middle of a service.

 

[waitasec]

What I would say about this thread is that I do not really regard religious faith as evil in itself. It can undermine morality by spreading the idea that a divine (or secular) authority dictates right and wrong. The Communist Party has set itself up as the moral authority. Any action dictated by the Party is good on the grounds that it advances the needs of humanity, as dictated by the Party.

Quite often, people of religious faith get themselves into the same moral bind. Consider the behavior of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, when faced with evidence of priests molesting children. The reaction was to cover up the facts in order to preserve the reputation of the Church, which overrode the immorality of what the pedophile priests were doing.

copernicus strikes again!!
:clap

 

[Midnight Pete]

Quite often, people of religious faith get themselves into the same moral bind. Consider the behavior of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, when faced with evidence of priests molesting children. The reaction was to cover up the facts in order to preserve the reputation of the Church, which overrode the immorality of what the pedophile priests were doing.

The Catholic Church is in dire need of a reboot. The whole organization needs to die and be reborn because it has been riddled with tumours for quite some time now. But are there still good people in the Catholic Church? Yes, there are still good people in the Catholic Church.

 

[Walkntune]

The faith, as defined here, does two bad things. One is that it leads people to fear things for no reason--because they don't need evidence. Two, it prevents anyone from alleviating their fear and de-escalating their violence, because they already "know" (with no evidence) that the Other is evil, and no amount of evidence can dissuade them. After all, Satan is a dissembler. So faith is a significant component of the problem.

I disagree and as fear and faith is evolved in our fight and flight response, you can use evidence to alleviate your fears or you can just release them as you choose and not operate in them.
If life was meant to be lived mechanically by evidence then there would be no intuition and imagination and abstract ideas like beauty and art.
What is the purpose of the evolution of imagination?
The only evidence we have is that life is uncertain so I choose to make a path instead of being dictated by one.

 

[Autodidact]

His view is selective! He drills down on the negative aspects of religion and makes it seem like that's all there is to say about it. And FYI the people who organize armies and plant bombs are past the point of civilized discussion, no matter who they are what their cause is.

So the whole thing is hopeless, in your view?

I would say that if they're past the point of discussion, it's precisely because they base their beliefs on something other than evidence.

Am thankful that Richard Dawkins is using non-violent methods to advance his views? Heck, yes! AFAIK, no anti-theist violence has been traced back to Dawkins himself. It's his followers I'm more worried about. It's always some lone unhinged individual that does something crazy. Whenever I walk by my church I wonder if it's going to get vandalized or burned down. I've read news stories of pastors being shot by gun-toting maniacs in the middle of a service.

Atheist maniacs? Or disgruntled Christians? Prof. Dawkins doesn't have any followers. Can you provide any example of Atheist extremists committing violence against religion?

 

[outhouse]

The whole organization needs to die and be reborn because it has been riddled with tumours for quite some time now

wow you said something again I agree with LOL