Granted, but as far as I can tell, Bob Bobford was making an argument about how we should treat things that are generally undetermined, then claiming that his particular case was just one of them, whereas it clearly isn’t, or at least there are other considerations being made (such as those distinct ones you detailed above).
What evidence do you base your belief in ressurection on? There is no documentation other than the bible, which most christians concede is largely a collection of stories that are not supposed to be taken literally. Why would the story of the resurrection be excluded from the list of fables that most christians believe to be fictional? Where would a thoughtful christian draw the line?
I won’t argue with your thesis as stated in the quote, Skald the Rhymer; in fact I’ll heartily agree with it. What I take issue with, however, is your use of the words “pick a fight.” It is inaccurate–no, an outright lie–as well as being needlessly inflammatory and distracting. Moreover, you could just as easily have written “write a succinct OP.” Such behavior demonstates a desire to stir up shit, not a desire to change anyone’s mind
What an asshole I’m being, huh, Skald? I’m starting to truly dislike all the posters like you who claim to have difficulty with Badchad’s means of expression, which are simply colorful and direct, but whose real difficulty concerns the ideas he expresses.
**
Badchad **, as far as I’m concerned, is the truest Straight Doper I’ve seen here yet, who applies the raison-d’etre of this place, fighting ignorance and combatting superstitious bulllying, across the board. Because this board is populated by Christians mainly, there’s this gaping hole in the philosophy of the Straight Dope–we fight ignorance and superstition, except where the majority of us hold lifelong beilefs that are based on obscuring the truth and worshipping an entity that is unsusceptible to reason or logic, and he fights this battle wittily and resolutely, and pretty much alone.
Since you can’t cope with his steadfast reasoning, people like you, Skald, instead to attack him by the most pathetic, puny, weakassed method of combat I can imagine: you nitpick his words, twisting them so that they seem poorly-chosen or inflammatory, when they’re just direct and clever ways to state his points. Whatever your own beliefs, you’re just enabling the Christian bullies here who claim this gigantic exception to the standards of this place–namely “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”–doesn’t apply to them, and they get away with this hypocrisy because they’re in the majority here.
“Pretty much alone”? “Christian bullies”?
Look at this thread, or any other like it. More atheists show up to these religious discussions than theists, and it’s very rare that the atheists are the ones asked to justify their beliefs. badchad and a few others are basically atheistic proselytizers, and in my experience they’re seldom polite about it.
Yeah, but we’re the ones being forced to endure religious persecution in our everyday life. It’s a daily battle to protect our rights. You’d be pissed off, too!
We don’t need to be polite. We’re often polite out of basic human decencies, but why should we have to justify our beliefs when WE DON’T HAVE BELIEFS, and we doubt very much that you do. You’re just laying on the bombast with a trowel in a pretty successful attempt to intimidate us into conceding your right to indoctinate. If this thread concerned any belief other than Theism, it would be laughed off this board.
First, I am an atheist. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Second, I’m plenty pissed off about actual persecution, but I don’t see any of it happening on the SDMB. The bad acts of others are not a good enough reason to be impolite to theists acting in good faith here.
This is true in exactly the same way that we don’t need to bathe.
Call them what you want, but you do have a set of axioms and conclusions about the nature of the universe, and about the likelihood of the existence of a god, yes? When I say “beliefs,” that’s what I’m referring to.
I am? As an atheist, that comes as quite a shock to me.
Also, what the…? Where’s my bombast? How could anything I’ve written here be construed as intimidation? Please tone down your rhetoric if you wish to have a discussion.
There is a lot of stuff that qualifies as brainwashing going on. It occurs on a lot of emotional levels and on a lot of subjects.
Many Religious people pass on their beliefs to their kids simply as part of teaching them right from wrong. The brainwashing isn’t intentional. The children embrace the beliefs first out of trust and perhaps later out of a fear of parental rejection. MAny people do teach their kids that when they are in their teens that they are free to choose what they believe for themselves. That encouragement to think and choose for themselves should be taught in every case. Unfortunatly it isn’t.
I think your other explanations have some merit. As I said before. For many people their beliefs are connected to a real subjective experience they label as spiritual.
I’m no expert in child psychology or educational development, but it seems to me you have to learn & accept some things uncritically before you get into critical thinking. You have to learn to count to 10 before questioning why 8 comes after 7. You have to learn who George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were before thinking critically about the casues of the American Revolution or Civil War. You have to accept your parents’ commands not to run into the street and not to drink the Drano if you’re going to survive long enough to develop your own rules for living.
As for how early, or whether, children are “allowed” to question the Bible, or anything else for that matter, that varies quite a bit from family to family, church to church, etc. Your own experience is not universal.
Noted.
Piffle.
I know several atheists who lack a belief in a god simply because they were raised in a family where there was no belief in a god and they accepted that situation as uncritically as any theist accepts a god. I also know a few people who “critically” came to atheism, then abandoned it and became believers in a god (often one radically different than the one worshipped by their family, so it was not simply a matter of “going home”).
Piffle, again.
This has been argued to death.
You are wrong.
Go look up any of the numerous threads on the topic (I think there was one last month) to see the points made or open a new thread to discuss it one more time.
Please stop hijacking this thread with an old argument that is really not germane to the actual topic of this thread. (I am sure that you see the world in the way that you have described it, but I assure you that others see it quite differently and this line of argument is going to hopelessly derail the thread as presented.)
(If I have to wade through these things, I’d much rather see some new discussion rather than having to read the same argument I read last month.)
This board is populated by Christians mainly? That hasn’t been my experience but I haven’t taken a census. Perhaps others can help illuminate.
In anycase I think you’re overreacting. I have no problem with a strong unapologetic arguement, nor colorful language. The colorful language doesn’t really bolster the real meat of the arguement. It doesn’t lend it any added credibility. I think** badchad ** makes some excellent points. He also makes some fairly weak ones IMHO and stubbornly defends them even when clear evidence is presented. I saw some interesting similarities between his style and Biblemans. Isn’t that exactly what he rails against?
FTR I agree with Sam Harris that beliefs should be challanged. There’s too much at stake to keep quiet out of some twisted definition of respect. The manner of that challenge will affect any result. Crys of “gullible irrational fool” and “arrogant jerk” don’t help much. Is the point to exchange ideas? To better understand and be understood? Or is it to “prove I’m right” or just to get your rocks off argueing with people you don’t agree with.
As others have mentioned, it’s difficult to assail this thesis, but for what it’s worth:
It is often wrong and frequently dangerous…
If by “wrong” all is meant is “not true” then of course nothing is added by its inclusion. I agree that holding a belief that is not true is “less good” than the alternative, but the claim of “dangerous” requires support.
I have no statistics, but it is not extraordinary to maintain that for every “bad thing” done in the name of religion, there are more “good things” or at least “neutral things” and at least equal to the number of “bad things” done outside of religious influence.
Further: beliefs in the form of traditions help hold communities together. One can ask wouldn’t it be better to hold communities together on the basis of truth rather than myth? Sure it would, but that doesn’t detract from the community building value in the belief.
It is really wrong, when you continue to hold these beliefs even when your own reason and experience would tell us they are wrong.
This is impossible: no one can believe something they do not believe. Profess belief despite contrary convictions, sure… I agree there is a general wrongness in doing so, and I value the principle, “To thine own self be true.” But I concede cases where going through the motions can be of value to maintain one’s social acceptance in a community when faced with exclusion and derision may be an alternative.
Summary: badchad’s thesis is incorrect, overstating both the frequency and magnitude of harm done by uncritically adopting time-worn traditional beliefs. While I agree such beliefs should be critically assessed - and discarded when found wanting - I argue that frequent danger is not the necessary result of failing to do so.
If you were a woman and we were in the same room, I’d propose to you on the spot.
Okay, maybe I’d just ask you out for coffee.
I thought you were defending the Theists who pretend to be concerned about Badchad’s rhetoric when actually they’re disturbed by his ideas. That’s whom I was addressing.
The bombast comes in the disgusting and cowardly criticisms on badchad for being impolite, uncivil, inflammatory, etc. It’s the last refuge of a theist caught with his logic down–“Oh, yeah? Well , I think you’re being RUDE!!!” [“Badchad is rude” pileup ensues.] This pileup usually continues until everyone has forgotten badchad point, which is the purpose of the hijack in the first place.
Listen, if you’re getting your ass kicked in a debate, take the ass-kicking and go away, please. Don’t lecture me on niceties of etiquette just because you have no other points to make.
How many people are affected because the religious prevent people from using effective means of birth control? How many people get diseases they could have avoided by wearing a condom? How many people could be helped by stem cell research? How many wanted an abortion but couldn’t them? How much time and effort is spent keeping things like creationism out of schools? How much money was wasted because lunatics flew planes into buildings in New York? How much was spent on the wars that followed? How much is being spent on security measures to keep it from happening again? All this is being done in the name of religion or because of people’s religious beliefs.
Any yes, religious people help to make many things better. Many athiests help to make things better, too. If religion was gone tomorrow would people stop helping each other?
I’m not going to wade through threads checking but I’m pretty sure I remember some atheists also chiming in to critize badchads style. What do you make of that?
You might have a point, but I think what you’ve done here also tends toward a fallacy of distraction in the complete opposite direction; to wit: people are only criticising badchad’s style because they’re afraid of his substance. I think this is a particularly inaccurate, perhaps dishonest assessment of the state of play.
Not that you asked me, but I attribute it to different styles and not wanting to rock the boat.
well, what tom said. You can’t be so naive to not realize at least some atheists become that way because their parents were and taught them that, or that they did because of peer pressure. It’s just human nature. It’s isn’t only about logic and reasoning. It’s about emotion as well. Emotion affects the nature of atheist belief as well.
Real atheists can’t become believers? So if they lacked belief in God and then believed that isn’t what happens? Can they at least eat quiche?
I realize lots of people see atheism as some strange form of spiritual belief. I am not one of them. When Sam Harris suggested we not give religion any special status I took that seriously. In doing so I came to think more about the nature of what we believe on a subjective level as well as the objective. In doing so I realized that believers and non believers share a lot of the same traits and motives for what they believe in the subjective arena. Both have a belief system when we subtract the religious label. Both act on things out of faith when we subtract the religious faith specification. If we’re not giving relious beliefs a special protected staus {and I believe we shouldn’t} then perhaps we can stop covering every religious belief with the same blanket, and deal with the more specific details of belief.
Sorry…I vented a bit
FTR believers also have to swim against the tide and more than a few have suffered from it.