Funny you should mention that. An aggressive Hindu fundie has gotten a history of Hinduism withdrawn in India by claiming that this academic work was insulting.
From what I read in the Times it would be like Christian fundamentalist suing to ban works on the historical Jesus which conflicted with the Bible.
Christianity and Islam hardly have a duopoly on dickishness.
Serious question:
Has any thread managed to pin Hitler and Stalin’s numbers on one side or the other? Because it seems to me that even if we dismiss those numbers…Pol Pot and the French Revolution easily eclipse inquisitions and Crusades.*
*And have THOSE numbers ever been tallied in a thread?
Nonbelieving heathen (not for any good reason, God just doesn’t talk to me) who just wanted to vote:
I find it generally annoying when someone speaks as an authority about something they can’t prove–existence or nonexistence. Either sort of believer becomes a dick when they stop respecting what resides in someone else’s heart. So, first poll option.
I’m a pretty hard core atheist, but I mostly don’t make arguments. Someone who wants to change my mind has to convince me, and so far I have found nothing compelling or convincing enough to even generate an argument. If someone really pushes me (almost never happens) I will explain why I don’t find their arguments convincing. But for the most part, I don’t feel the need to persuade anyone else that I’m right, I’m happy enough to know that I am.
Since I’m not interested in changing anyone else’s mind, I generally don’t start arguments on this topic myself.
When people start mixing religion with politics, however, I will put in my oar from time to time, but not against the concept of religion, just against the concept of one religion being raised up above any others (or above the lack of religion).
And I agree with Ranger Jeff that these threads never change anyone’s mind about anything.
Roddy
Really?
In the military, they say “10% of the troops never get the word” and it’s a problem they have to contend with. Evidently, for this omnipotent being, it’s OK if 75% of the troops never get the word?
Good one! As an atheist/agnostic, that annoys the hell out of me. Am I allowed to say hell?
Well, that’s usually my purpose. 
I agree, though I’d say “either believer or nonbeliever.” Though I admit that sadly, some take nonbelief to the level of absolute faith.
Well then you’re not agreeing properly, and I shall have to bludgeon you to prove I’m right!
I can’t recall hearing an atheist do this:
I can recall many times when atheists have taken excerpts from the Bible that contradict other passages quoted by the faithful to demonstrate that their beliefs are based on scripture and their actions are thus justified.
This technique is not an atheist’s argument against religion–it is a demonstration of how some people who point to their faith as the source of their morality are really just looking to rationalize their biases.
:eek:
I came to ask why one option wasn’t the dumb fallacy, “The Bible isn’t fit to line birdcages with”…but I think “Taking the Bible out of context” covers that.
Also the fallacy of “Well…then the Koran and other religious books are just as important.” YEssssss because we reference The Koran SO many times in the Western world.
How is this a fallacy? The Western world isn’t the Whole world. The Koran is referenced billions of times daily. Why is it fair to dismiss it so lightly?
Because the argument is that a passing familiarity of the Bible is essential to getting only about a billion references in the western world, and therefore the Bible is worth more than birdcage newspaper. For one to argue that the Koran holds equal weight in that regard is a fallacy.
I don’t recall ever seeing an atheist try to deny that the Bible is the source for much of Western literature - novel titles for one. If you lived in Egypt the Koran would be a lot more useful, though. But it has nothing to do with atheism. Citation to Shakespeare are not evidence for a historical Hamlet.
I think it can be a debate fallacy when atheists use that notion as a loaded question or statement. It forces the theist to draw some bold lines in their belief very quickly, or be trapped in a very difficult stance for their argument.
Although it is amusing when you bring up another major religion to a Christian fundy, and their knee-jerk reaction is, “They made that shit up!”
Your first sentence refers to something called a “debate fallacy.” Your second sentence simply describes an excellent procedure.
ETA: YoungKusher, perhaps you meant to say “poor debating strategy” rather than “fallacy” in your first sentence, and “so quickly and abruptly that the atheist comes off as looking like a jerk for making the theist feel bad” in the second sentence?
Again, though, the west isn’t the whole world. In many parts of the world, ignorance of the Koran would be as crippling as ignorance of the Bible is here in the U.S. You seem to be particularizing, and that’s a form of circular argument. A nice Imam in Baghdad could make exactly the same argument you’re making…for the Koran and against the Bible.
Hogwash; it’s an observation of the flaws of some kinds of narrow minds. It wasn’t an “argument” in any way.
A nice Imam would have a good point. And Im not arguing ‘against’ the Koran.
Apologies, then: I don’t quite see what you are arguing.
As I see it, the atheist argument is, “There are other holy books; how exactly do you accept one and dismiss the others?”
I’ll agree that this could be annoying.
But what I’m not seeing is that it’s fallacious.
More or less. I guess I had it in my head that loaded questions are fallacies since I frown upon them the same way I do red herrings or strawman arguments.
Also, the train of thought, was a theist arguing about an atheist who misquoted Bible verses, then the atheist asking, “Why isn’t the Koran just as important?” That, in my mind, is still a fallacy because it dodges the atheist’s initial misuse of Bible verses with, “Well it doesn’t matter anyways because what about the Koran?!”