Were you responding to the post to which you thought you were responding?
LOUNE notes that all fundamentalism (using that word a bit sloppily, but clearly indicating “rabid” beliefs, as he explains) is bad.
You question whether that is true even if the beliefs are objectively wrong. Do you think that erroneous beliefs might be better if they are rabid? Nothing in LOUNE’s post could be construed to defend racism or fascism (which would tend to fall nto the categories of “fundamentalism” (as he used it) or “rabid”).
I tend to agree that almost all can be perverted, I tend to think Quakers are more resistant to Group Evil than most and Unitarians are close behind. I guess I do not like to deal in absolutes of any sort.
I think strong Atheism takes and as much absolute belief as the strongly religious. I think someone already basically said this in the first reply.
Jim {Please do no throw Nixon at me, it hurts too much.}
Not really. Belief affects action even when you don’t want it to; it distorts judgment. Beliefs aren’t passive things, like books in a library; they constantly push you to act according to them.
The fact that since there is no evidence for the truth of any religion, critical thinking would lead to their dismissal as unprovable, at best ?
He, as far as I could tell, was defining “rabid” and “fundamentalism” as beliefs that make no room for other beliefs. I picked racism and fascism because they are beliefs most people consider completely unacceptable, not because I thought he was defending them. The point I was trying to make is that I think there is nothing innately wrong with considering some beliefs to be either objectively wrong or evil.
Now, if he meant beliefs that make no room for any other beliefs, instead of certain specifically condemned ones, that would be another matter.
Um. This thread, for starters. Most posts of yours I’ve seen thus far. But of course the characteristic of the overly enthusiastic adherent is not recognizing the extent of their excessive enthusiasm. Here’s a hint: using the word ‘indoctrinate’ the way you do and your insistence that people thus ‘indoctrinated’ are incapable of making considered choices.
There are too many flaws in logic in your ‘case’ for suing parents for me to even begin pointing them out. Suffice it to say it would fail, utterly, any tests of validity at law.
Wow. You have it bad. I used the word “indoctrinated” so that means I’m trying to persuade you to become an atheist? Wow. That doesn’t even make sense–if I was trying to convert you, wouldn’t I use language that you find attractive rather than language that gets your back up? (FTR, I think ‘indoctrinated’ is a pretty neutral description–the Jesuits like to boast “give us a boy at five, and we’ll make a Catholic out of him.” That’s actually a pretty loose paraphrase but you get the idea: religious people don’t mind admitting that getting people very young is helpful to their ability to instill beliefs in them.)
I couldn’t care less if you become an atheist, and I’ve put almost no effort into that cause, here or elsewhere. Hell, I don’t even like this trend of kids suing parents, but it’s certainly true that kids are much more likely to make such charges stick in the 21st century than in the 20th. Dont you agree with that observation?
Is it possible for people to use logic and come to a conclusion that there is a divine being? Their logic might be flawed, but critical thinking is far from perfect and subject to revision as more data pours in, is it not?
Then by that standard, shouldn’t we be subjecting every action to minute scrutiny to determine its motivation? I mean, I might drive a Toyota because it’s a reliable economical vehicle, or I might be doing so because God told me to. Do my beliefs make a practical difference?
As with that proof’s fallacious (or at least unsupported) assumption of the possibility of an omniscient being, you assume fallaciously (or at least without support) that it is valid.
Or something. The gist being that the modal proof is crap and even if by some unlikely chance it wasn’t at an omniscient being exists, the proof says nothing about that being taking even the slightest interest in humanity, thus all religions based on this being lack foundation.
Only if they reason badly. There simply isn’t any evidence for it; what evidence there is points against it.
Depends on the belief. Some motivations are worth more scrutiny than others, some actions require more attention than others, obviously. Religion is a special case, because it is so irrational and so all encompassing; it is the nature of religion that it tries to warp everything to it’s view of reality.
You don’t need to be a lawyer to see the huge, gaping holes in his argument.
I think ‘indoctrinated’ is laden with ominous and malevolent intent. Surely you aren’t trying to persuade anyone that ‘brainwashing’ (modified by ‘genuine’, no less) is a neutral term? And surely you aren’t trying to say that you are content to leave religious types alone and that you wouldn’t be delighted if they converted to atheism? Are you not trying to persuade people that you have seen The Light and that others should follow?
The problem is you’re not being selective enough in your targets. A hardcore fundamentalist trying to change the laws to conform to his views should be challenged, but so should a hardcore communist. A quiet religious believer minding his own business should be left alone.
Please may I see these citations? It’s not that I’m challenging you regarding their existence, I’m just keen to see them firsthand, because they sound so extraordinary to me.
Well, the most recent is quote #241here. It also affirms the strange statement that I have not only stated forthrightly that I wish that every Christian to be wiped off the face of the earth, but that I have said so clearly and repeatedly. I don’t believe I have ever implied that wish even once on the SDMB, or even that I’ve had that wish. Since I’m very fond of several Christians, including some on the SDMB, I can’t even imagine wishing all of them were dead, but that’s what** Liberal ** says I wrote.
So it should be easy for you to point out what that hole is, right? Or do you think if you call it “huge” and “gaping,” that proves your point?
Are you arguing that no one has ever been genuinely brainwashed into a religious belief? Because they have. And I think one of those brainwashings, particularly of a young and vulnerable child, will form the basis of the kind of landmark test case I’m speculating will occur, sooner rather than later.
And what I’ve said, many times here, is that I don’t think anyone has ever been converted to atheism before they were willing to think for themselves and make that decision on their own. I might make some arguments for atheism, or tell how I came to believe as I do, or show some basis for thinking that religions are based on falsehoods, but I don’t believe that proselytizing accomplishes anything. What you believe is your business and, I’ve stated many times, you have a perfect right to believe whatever you want to believe.
Apparently a false memory on my part, based on a conflation of so many, um, remarkable statements. My apologies. As it turns out, you do not fantasize about any direct extermination of Christians, but merely that the places where we congregate be “burnt to bits and the ashes distributed to the winds”. I suppose you could specify at this point whether or not you fantasize that the burning churches be occupied by congregation and/or staff.
Then what about our property, assets, equity, and labor that we have invested in those churches? Are we to be compensated financially, and if so by whom? And what happens when we begin meeting at other facilities, including our homes? Will those be burned as well?