I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe that repetition of a fact is a bad thing, or that continually pointing out why people deserve moral condemnation lessens the blow. I can accept that others do.
To be honest, on that point, I’m just not sure. I’ve seen no statical data one way or the other, and I’d rather not guess.
What bugs me about Christianity, is how it thinks it can cancel the sins of The Crusades and The Inquisition with weekly get-togethers and a few church jumble sales. I realise they’ve moved on a bit since those rough patches on their PR resume, but I reckon it’d take more than general “do-gooding” to be forgiven for those excesses, if there is a god. Why would anyone want to remain associated with such nasty forerunners?
I’ve read this thread with great interest and would like to inject my views.
On Dawkins: I read The God Delusion and loved it to bits. As far as I remember, I agreed with pretty much all of it. I don’t remember a single part of it where I thought Dawkins was being an asshole or unnecessarily abrasive. Apparently, he has been an asshole elsewhere but I don’t know much about him outside of this book. I read the short article by Dawkins where he says being brought up Catholic is worse than being sexually abused, and I do not in general agree with that (“in general” because I don’t think he is lying about the Catholic lady who made the same claim, but that is one person out of millions), and while that is close to the line, I don’t think he’s being an asshole.
I also agree that it is harmful to bring children up Catholic. Why am I not crusading to take children away from Catholic parents? Simple: practicality. There is zero chance of something like that succeeding, and the attempt would not in any way help my cause but rather harm it.
Which brings me neatly to Der Trihs. I agree with most of the things he says on religion and many of the things he says on politics. The problem I have with him is that he is so unyieldingly hostile that it is virtually impossible to engage him in conversation, and I think that’s counterproductive to his cause, which is annoying to me as it is in part my cause too. Furthermore, and foremost, once he has posted to a thread it’s pretty pointless for someone like me to post to it. All the attention is going to be centered on him and any hope of a productive conversation is gone.
Liberal: I think you know me well enough to know that I don’t want you incarcerated or exterminated. I don’t consider you sick, crazy, dangerous, or an idiot. But yeah, I do consider you delusional. I consider all religious people delusional. It would be intellectually dishonest of me not to, and it would be cowardly of me to say otherwise.
I do have one concern. You have explained that you were an atheist until one day you had an epiphany or a revelation when suddenly you knew with all certainty that there was a God and Jesus Christ was his son. That makes me wonder what stops you from one day having an epiphany or revelation which makes you suddenly know something else with the same amount of certainty, something a whole lot more harmful. Do I believe this will happen? No. Do I believe it’s a possibility? Yes. It scares me.
As for my general views on religion, I agree with Dawkins and others that it is harmful and destructive, with very few exceptions. The good things that allegedly come from religion can be had without it, and it is my contention that religion causes bad things that would not have happened without religion.
Do you have any reason to keep insisting that it is religion that demands that people do evil things? Can you provide any evidence that religion, by it’s very nature, requires that people do evil things to support it? Listing evil things that religious organizations have done does not prove that it is the religious belief that made them do it. That’s like saying that money is, by it’s very nature, evil because people have done evil things to acquire it.
People can say that they are doing things in the name of religion when they are really doing it for personal power, or to line their pockets. Why do you refuse to accept the idea that they may be using religion as an excuse? After all, if they’re evil enough to oppress and kill, wouldn’t lying be a relatively minor transgression?
Again, I would like a cite for your statement that “Christianity is, and always has been, at heart about hatred and oppression”. You have used this argument repeated whenever you discuss religion, but outside of listing all the evil things that people have done in the name of religion you never explain how belief in God requires that they do these evil things.
And for the record, I do agree that religion has caused people to do evil things. So has the desire for money and possessions. But I don’t condemn money and possessions because of it.
Ohhh, you’re a girl? Sorry, I had it wrong. Except now I wonder why I think it’s okay for a girl to be named Heffalump and Roo but not a guy? So what if a guy really did want a cutesy name? Shouldn’t be a big deal, right? Of course that’s a topic for another thread, but it’s an interesting question to contemplate.
Religion isn’t generic like money. It’s like racism. It’s premises are at best irrational and typically outright malignant. When a religion calls homosexuals evil, or demands that women submit to men, and that religion’s followers abuse or kill homosexuals and oppress women, why is it unfair to blame the religion that demands they do just that ? What would you say to someone who said that it was unfair to blame Nazism for the Holocaust, that it was all the fault of the people who actually carried it out and you shouldn’t judge Nazism as a whole over what they did ?
Many of them are. Many of them aren’t. What you ignore that in many cases they have NO OTHER REASON than religion to do what they do. That what they do doesn’t give them profit, or power, or may even be outright self destructive. Why do YOU insist that religion isn’t to blame ? Is there anything - anything at all - that could get you to blame religion for something ?
Because Christianity as a whole, specifically, is evil. An overwhelmingly aggressive, ruthless, tyrannical belief system, with a worldview that fundamentally lends itself to such behaviors, and a history of indulging in them. Belief in God is stupid, but not necessarily evil. And the occasional non-evil Christian does NOT let the religion as a whole off the hook; as I said, you can be a good person and a Christian, but that’s being a bad Christian. Like being a Nazi who shows mercy to Jews; good person, bad Nazi.
And “listing all the evil things that people have done in the name of religion” is an excellent indictment in itself. Facts trump theory and ideology.
Money and possessions don’t demand that you commit evil. Nor are they delusional.
Ah, you gibbering loony, you! See your shrink about upping your meds.
(bolding mine)
Try reading what I asked, and attempt comprehension this time:
You insist on ascribing the actions of a religious organization to the concept of religion itself. If I were to found an organization dedicated to the preservation of the red-footed squirrel and then, in the name of that organization, advocate the destruction of everyone who lives in a given area in order to provide a habitat for red-footed squirrels, does that mean that every organization dedicated to the preservation of red-footed squirrels is evil?
I give up. You argue against religion the same way that some people argue for theism. You have decided, speaking (in the words of that great philosopher, Jubal Harshaw) ex cathedra from your belly button, that religion is inherently evil, and respond to any requests for evidence of this by saying, “Because it is!” just like some theists cite the Bible as proof of God’s existence.
Bringing nothing to the table then? There’s a word for that on the intarwebz.
I thought Der Trihs was only passionately opposed to Organised Religion? Has he shown any disdain for personal spirituality elsewhere, and I’ve missed it?
If you are a theist of any form, Der Trihs considers you an evil, hateful bigot and wishes death upon you. He wishes even more death upon you if you happen to be a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, particularly if you’re stationed in Iraq.
Seriously? You want us to keep arguing with him? Regardless of what he says? I guess we could since this thread is already hijacked beyond comprehension, but what would be the point?
I’m sure he can’t have anything against a person who merely believes there might be a force beyond our current comprehension that somehow benefits from us trying to be nice to each other, or is that verbotten as well?
I did read what you said; you are demanding that I defend a position I haven’t taken.
No, I’m not. I quite clearly made a distinction between religion in general and Christianity specifically. You ( of course ) are ignoring this.
Actually no. You have made it clear that evidence for the evil behavior of religions, any religion DOESN’T count in your eyes. Why should I take the trouble to list out various evils and stupidities that everyone has heard before, and you would just handwave away as not counting ?
Like all those who defend religion, you are obviously either dishonest, delusional, or both. An honest discussion is apparently beyond you. You don’t even try to argue against anything I say.
No, I don’t wish death upon them. That’s a lie, not that I expect honesty from a defender of religion.
How did you read anything I wrote in that post as a defense of religion?
The post of Der Trihs that Lonesome Polecat dismissed with ‘up your meds you loony’ contained verifiable negative statements about religions, that LP didn’t care to refute. It contained pointed questions, that LP didn’t care to answer. I called him on it. You, for your part, could have either
(a) also called LP on it
(b) discussed DT’s statements or attempted to answer his questions
or
(c) started having a go at me for pointing out the difference between the contentful DT post and the contentless LP reply.
You chose (c).
Why? What need did this fulfil?
Go back and read that DT post.
This is fair comment. You haven’t posted anything defending religion in this thread (though I’ve no idea about elsewhere). Unless Der Trihs can find instances of your defending religion, he shouldn’t mischaracterise you like that.
Having said that… you’ve dealt with the subclause in his sentence. Now what about the main clause? Were you in fact lying [defender-of-religion-or-not-let’s-stick-to-the-point], or can you offer a cite for your assertion of what DT thinks?
This may help to explain it.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins
He cites with approval this fellow in the same article:
The article in question is reprinted here:
And contains these statements:
To my mind, this paints a rather depressing picture of these people’s tolerance for the beliefs of others … and I’m not a theist.
Then please point out in the following quotes from this thread where you are making a distinction between religion in general and Christianity specifically:
And I’m sure if I dug through other threads where you have railed about the evils of religion I would find many similar statements where you make no distinction between religion and Christianity. But I don’t have the time, or the stomach, to wade through all that muck now.
Aha! Someone actually read my OP! My mission is complete!
That’s a reasonable criticism. But honestly, I was more venting about a general style of posting than I was disagreeing with a specific claim. People point out that there are (at least some) bad (for some versions of bad) people on both sides, which is obviously true, and, having tossed that out there, stride away briskly, their work done. At least, that’s how it comes across to me.
But honestly, that might just be my knee jerk response to something that was meant entirely differently. Which is partly why I started this thread… to vent, but also to see if other people have noticed the same thing, had the same reaction, etc.