Respecting Religious Beliefs

Great Debates
101

How about this:

“People who believe in God behave like ruffians: they kill and they murder others along with themselves. Faith in God is like a mental disease-it disorientates you and makes you do evil things.” - Richard Dawkins

That sure sounds like hatred and lies towards religious people to me.

Can you just imagine what would happen if he said “Gay people behave like ruffians” or “Blacks kill and they murder others along with themselves” or “Poverty is like a mental disease-it disorientates (?) you and makes you do evil things”? If he said any of those things, he would immediately lose his job and become a pariah, no longer welcome in respectable society. It is only because he directs his hatred and slander at religious people that he instead earns widespread praise from so many sources.

102

How do we know the damage besides from subjective reports? Do you think the woman in the quote was lying about the impact of the two events on her?
You clearly think the Dawkins is offensive because Catholic teachings are no big deal. So, how about parents who send their children to religious training that teaches racism.How about to a religious institution that teaches suicide bombing? Would your answer be the same for secular institutions teaching the same stuff?

103

What’s abusrd about this suggestion is quite clear. There’s documented evidence that child molesting inflicts lasting harm, while there’s no evidence that religion damages anyone. That’s what makes it absurd.

104

I strongly suggest that you read the rest of his essay. If you are fair-minded you will see exactly why I think the qualification is “coy”.

You can hand-wave my analogy away all you want, but you cannot rationally distinguish it.

Lots of relatively minor things are worse that “yucky” [the exact reaction of the little girl in his anecdote]. This does not, logically, mean that lots of relatively minor things are worse than being molested by a priest. The logical fallacy he uses is to put a low subjective negative emotional value on an experience that we, as a society, find objectively horrible, and then to claim that another, quite unrelated thing (being raised Catholic) has “in many cases” an equal or greater subjective negative emotional value, and thus ought to have an equal or greater objective condemnation.

The logical and moral incoherence and dishonesty of this position is quite easy to demonstrate:

“I was made to eat beets as a child. For years. I found beets “yucky”. I was also molested by a priest. That was “yucky” too, but only happened once. Therefore, I suspect that being made to eat beets is worse than being molested by a priest, as it was the same trauma over a greater period of time”.

Now, the reason we condemn Priests sexually molesting children is not because kids hate it and it harms them (though they can and it may), but because it is a fundamental breach of trust. Being made to eat beets, or watch Old Yeller, or learning one’s Catchetism, is not a fundamental breach of trust, no matter how traumatic. That is why comparing them is so very silly, absurd and dishonest.

I hope this helps.

105

How many instances can you think of where someone being gay in and of itself moved them to murder another person? Or the fact that they were black did?

Because I’m sure I can come up with plenty of deaths that have been carried out on the basis of religious belief.

106

For members of the Catholic Church who have children, raising your children as Catholics and giving them an appropriate religious education is an official obligation. So for a parent, raising a child as Catholic is part of the being a practicing Catholic. The two cannot be separated.

107

I believe that my answer to Ensign Edison answers this. I do not disbelieve the anecdote-for the purposes of argument, I accept it as 100% true.

Attempting to indoctrinate children into committing illegal acts is, clearly, a whole other question. I’m against that.

108

I see no relevance between what you say and this thread (though perhaps you should read up on the history of the black power movement). Dawkins asserts that all people who believe in God commit murder and suicide and other unspecified “evil things”. Are you willing to back this up with proof that every single religious believer on the planet has committed murder? If not, then Dawkins is a malicious liar.

109

What’s “generally” true is irrelevant. Dawkins never said or implied that those that pass down religious beliefs are worse than child molesters and ITR Champion’s claim was that Dawkins said that believers in general are worse than child molesters, not just those that pass those beliefs on to others. In this case what’s generally true isn’t true, as in all of Dawkins’ writing and speeches, he’s never claimed that believers are bad people and I bet if I took the time out to do a search, I can find that he’s claimed that having silly beliefs does not make one a bad person.

I think you’re putting words in his mouth again.

Bullshit!

No, it’s not at all obvious. He’s making the point that if we are obsessive about focusing on only one type of abuse, we will miss others. You’re pretty good at making things up though.

Reasonable conclusion my ass! There’s no logical reason to conclude that Dawkins thinks that those that pass on religion are bad people and worse than child molesters. And again, ITR Champion’s claim was that Dawkins said that believers in general are worse than child molesters, not just those that pass those beliefs on to others. You’re not only attempting to falsely accuse Dawkins saying something that he didn’t, you’re doing the same of ITR Champion.

Great, now find me one more piece of evidence (a reliable one would be nice) that Dawkins actually said that. I find it hard to believe as a Google search yields me not even one more instance of that particular quote.

And then you can do the same for the identical accusation you made of Sam Harris.

This backs up your claim how? Dawkins did not say about believers what you claimed he did.

110

The quote doesn’t mention the type of abuse, understandably, but children can be abused without physical harm. The worst part is the mental abuse that goes with it. The cite does not say who told the girl her friend went to hell - but clearly, based on her memories, that was worse mental abuse than the molestation.

If a child is in a class where she is made to feel inferior and worthless by the teacher, wouldn’t parents who insist on the child going, and backing the teacher, be abusers also?

Isn’t that often the case? Child abuse often consists of actions that would be perfectly normal between two consenting adults. The abuse part comes from lack of consent and no doubt from implied guilt.

111

Hard to argue against such compelling “logic”. :smiley:

There is every reason - but you aren’t arguing, you are just emoting and nit-picking.

112

Since you said this also answered my objection, I’ll respond here. If you call widely accepted social mores as “objective”, you are quite right that molestation is considered worse than the religious abuse described. But that is the result of centuries of religiously driven hatred of the other. In Elizabethan England, a man abusing a child would no doubt suffer an awful fate. But a man turning in a Papist for torture and beheading would no doubt be rewarded by the state. Certainly those educating children about the evil of Catholics were not objectively considered to be abusers. And vice versa under Mary, of course.

And there is no breach of trust in a priest telling a child that her best friend is not only dead but being tortured in hell? Of course not, since that kind of exclusivity is at the very core of many religions. Not mine - we learned that all people go to the same not well defined place after they die, and that being Jewish imposed obligations but not any long term benefits. Which is no doubt why I never felt abused and didn’t have Pagan Baby moments.

113

In an alternate reality where my counterpart is a mere 0.0246% more hotheaded than I am, the idiotic and racist assumptions of that statement moved SkaldPrime to an epic meltdown. SkaldPrime opened a Pit threat about ITR-Prime whose title consisted largely of Anglo-Saxon monosyllables and in which he invited ITR-Prime to abuse himself in various anatomically improbable ways involving household appliances, carpentry tools, and two different species of ungulate.

But, alas, I am only 99.9754% as hotheaded as Skald Prime. Thus I shall only say that Baby Jesus weeps at the prospect of dying for your sins. And not the good kind of weeping, either.

114

Well, yes - but are the parents who force their kid to go to school because she finds school “traumatic” really always abusers? Lots of kids hate school - but school is generally though to be good for them anyway. Like eating vegitables rather than candy all day.

The “abuse” comes, not solely from how the child views the situation, but from whether the situation is also objectively an abusive one - if, for example, that teacher is really shaming that kid out of some twisted sadism, to make him or her suffer (as opposed to the mental torture of being forced to learn one’s times tables).

Similarly the “wrong” of sexual abuse of children does not derive from how the child views the matter - and it is impossible to know whether they will be “scarred” by guilt or whatever (some are and some are not). It comes from the breach of trust, something that occurs even where the kid finds it nothing much (or even pleasurable).

That, in a nutshell, is why Dawkins is absurdly wrong. He’s comparing a situation in which there is a breach of trust to one in which there is not. By that measure, he trivializes it - eating one’s beats, or learning one’s times tables, may be to many children more “yucky” than being molested, but it does not thereby follow that they are in fact worse.

115

Define “abuse”. Especially in the context of Elizabethan England. They did things to children that even the most recalcitrant advocates of spanking and “spare the rod, spoil the child” would find appalling. And as for sexual abuse, if it was intrafamilial, it wasn’t even talked about in this country until less than 50 years ago. I can only imagine that an Elizabethan father/stepfather (or mother/stepmother) would get away with far worse than an intrafamilial molester could possibly get today.

116

I’m constantly appalled by the deference and veneration people, not just in this country but all over the world, treat religion compared to similar behavorial or innate differences. To me, this kind of stuff is rooted firmly in tradition and the familiar; it makes people feel better to have some cultural social thing to fall back on

It wouldnt be as much of an issue if they were right, but often they are clearly wrong or their beliefs are untestable and unsupported. Yes, I’m talking about gay rights, but more than that its about racial and gender rights, the rights of nonbelievers or simply believers of something different than the dominant religious dogma. If anything is a choice and a conscious lifestyle pick, its religion

I dont see any good reason why religious beliefs should be respected. I suspect that the argument is as base as “leave me alone about my beliefs and I’ll leave you alone.” I think the argument should be reframed as something totally different. Only proven beliefs or provable ones should be respected. Nonbelievers should be granted the inherent admiration society usually reserves for their faith’s religious leaders

117

Hard to argue with someone who’s going to shorten all your statements and pretend that’s all you said.

Pointing out the difference between believers and just those that pass down beliefs is not nit-picking.

118

I really like this thread but some of the examples drawn in comparison to religion seem a little far-fetched.

Being white, calling a black person a “nigger” doesn’t make a comparison for me.
Use of that word-- a derogatory title invented by white slave owners-- does not compare to a story, said to have morals (and really doesn’t) that spawns centuries and centuries of killing “for god.”

Even in the OP, teasing a sports team or mocking a popular artist might inflame one or two people into a rage, religion will unite the whole room.

Last holiday season, we had protests here in CA saying, the phrase should be “Merry Christmas”, not “Happy Holidays.” “This is a Christian country.” Not on my watch.
Even ventriloquist Jeff Dunham draws loud cheers from his audience when Walter (the pissy-old folded arms puppet) says the same thing in his act.

Point is this: start talking about it. At least we can get a reaction,
maybe start a conversation, even an argument. Whatever the outcome, LOGIC can finally be examined.

One thing I’ve actually found when talking to others at a bar, cafe, etc., is the more questions I ask, the more uncomfortable a believer becomes. THIS IS A GOOD THING!
“Why are you religious? Why did Jesus have to be brutally murdered to save my original sin 2,000 years before I was born? If we can only procreate through fornication, why does god make us sin to start a family? Why do squids have better vision than humans? If we’re made in his image, why do we murder? What’s the point of free will when it allows us to make bombs, anthrax…”

I’ve gotten heated, I admit. Once I even told a guy next to me at a steak place,
“Let me ask you this: Serrated steak knife in my hand. I’m going to plunge it into your neck in 20 seconds. You are going to die. Your existence for the rest of time entirely depends on what I feel like doing next. To avoid jail, I’m jumping off the roof, taking my own life. And when the pallbearers carry you down the flowered garden, what will you think of your dumb-ass brethren shouting, ‘How could god let this happen?’ Because your murderer, me, made it happen. Are you telling me that god needs you in heaven for a greater purpose so he called me to stab you in a restaurant? That’s why he made me in HIS own image?”

I made the guy cry. And I did nothing wrong at all, at all, at all. He wasn’t upset at my words, he was upset at his lack of one good thing: doubt.

119

Maybe you made him cry because he thought a heated, apparently raving lunatic was about to stab him with a steak knife? :smiley:

120

Are you being deliberately thick? Fine, I’ll go slower.

You quote Dawkins as saying that - I won’t argue whether he did or not, you’ve said he did and you’re using it to support your argument. If that quote is as presented, Dawkins is saying that religious people kill and murder others. After that you say this is a lie - but it isn’t. Religiously motivated murder (either within or without the formal context of war) happens all the time, now and throughout history. By all means argue with this if you want but I’m going to have a hard time keeping a straight face if you do as it’s such a patently incorrect thing to say. Please note that in your quote Dawkins doesn’t say that *all *people who believe in god do these things, so I don’t see why it’s a lie for him to state this because religious people have indeed murdered others and themselves in the process (Islamic suicide bombers anyone?). If he meant “all religious people” in this quote then why didn’t he say that?

So here you’re trying to say that if you replace the concept of religion in that quote with some other group that such a statement wouldn’t be acceptable. Well, let’s try it:

You’re right, this would be a massively incendiary thing to say, but at the same time it’s pretty obviously false and I could only imagine it coming out of the mouth of a raving nutjob. Where is the evidence that homosexuals, as a group, murder others? And, as I said in my post earlier, if they did can you demonstrate they have done so because they are homosexuals? Let’s try it again:

Is it true some black people kill other people? Yes, no question of that. Is being black a mental disease? I’m struggling a bit with that one. Have black people been motivated to kill other people as a result of the fact that they are black? It’s conceivable I guess, but I can’t see how in reality your skin colour would in and of itself make you want to murder someone. Do people live in a culture where violence/murder/crime is prevalent and that is correlated to being black? Of course, again no argument there. But are those murders being committed by someone solely because their (that is the perpetrator’s) skin is a particular colour? If you have evidence that this happens please share it.

So my point (because you didn’t get it the first time around clearly) is that Dawkin’s statement isn’t a lie and that he’s got a point - religious people, because of their religious beliefs, do kill other people. Furthermore, your contention that if you replaced religion in it with some other group it would suddenly be an unacceptable thing to say is technically true, but that’s because such a statement would be utterly ridiculous and demonstrably false. You appeared to be arguing that Dawkins is unfairly maligning religion - I contend that he’s simply stating a fact. It’s my lack of respect for religion that makes me quite willing to point to the things that religious people seem to want to gloss over when complaining against the “unfair accusations” against them.

Can you now see the relevance between what I’m saying and this thread, or do I have to move to one-syllable words?