I think part of the problem is that some(not all) religionists see it as a black-or-white situation when it comes to their particular brand of worship.
There are those that believe in what they practice-The Blessed.
There are those that disbelieve in what they practice-The Deceived
In their world, anything that The Deceived say, do or think is influenced by Evil and thus must be wrong. The Blessed care not about the facts, because their God is the arbiter of what is right and wrong.
I’m happy to drop this and I won’t post about it again. But you can’t sensibly criticize me for pursuing it after you brought it up as a rebuttal to something I said.
To anyone who has been here for a couple of years, it was obvious who you were talking about.
Not sure - I expect there is an element of that, but I think it’s probably also guilt by association. e.g. Dawkins opposes me, that man who threw eggs at my church opposes me, therefore Dawkins is the sort of guy who might throw eggs at me. It’s faulty logic, but an easy trap to fall into when you’re dealing with soft data.
Nope.
Alright, it was obvious to me and I’m sure I am not alone. Moving on…
It’s just a matter of faith, so how can we criticize it? It is actually a lovely analogy to religion in general.
Except that that very post continues to bait. And then you post yet again when Muffin showed that you couldn’t be so sure after all.
I will show you what not posting again on the subject looks like:
In another direction, I have never attacked atheism. My personal belief is that alll should decide these things for themselves. And I certainly don’t support the courts in their decisions to continue to make reference to God on our money or in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
I have never generalized about atheists the way that some atheists have generalized about religious people. I find such generalizations to be very illogical and irrational.
That applies to you also, Der Trihs. That is why you get called on so many of the statements you make. Your perceptions are not matters of fact. You were mistaken about your “logical implication.” Your logic broke down somewhere. Maybe it had to do with your inability to answer whether your statement was a matter of fact or opinion.
I don’t like that he attacks it, but sometimes I think on the same subject. Sometimes I wonder if society is becoming too educated for religious affiliations. I am a 17 year old male from the United States, and freshmen biology alone sold me on evolution. AP biology gave me the hard evidence behind it, and as much as I would like to accept some sort of religion, I find myself a little too education. Perhaps, though, it is the other way around, and I’m simply too ignorant.
Right. actively confronting people about their delusions is not the answer. I’m in the"give em enough rope…" camp.
may_be_ignorant, I can’t speak for people of other religions, but a great number of Christians have no problem in accepting evolution as scientific fact. I’m 66 and I can’t remember a time when I didn’t assume that it was the appropriate scientific explanation. (That doesn’t mean that I’ve had a complete understanding of the details.)
Despite our living in the Bible Belt, we had never heard of “Creationism” as such or “Intelligent Design” when I was in school. I was familiar with the story told in Genesis, but that was for Sundays and I didn’t much accept word for word stories about women being made out of a rib or talking snakes. Taking the Bible literally isn’t a requirement.
If the Pope or Ayatollah “had a device that would rid [unbelievers] from the planet” do I think they would use it? Maybe.
If Dawkins “had a device…”? No.
And yet, isn’t that how we deal with people with delusions *other *than God-belief–by confronting those delusions?
In order to psychologically treat a delusional person they need to be confronted at some point (ideally in an appropriate and supportive manner) with the fact that they are delusional. It’s a pretty big component of that person’s mental illness, therefore not something to be glossed over and simply “given a pass”.
Other than adjusting the manner in which the confrontation takes place in order to deal with the unfortunate fact that this particular delusion is largely accepted by society, there is no reason to treat folks with this delusion differently than people with any other delusion.