Richard Dawkins' Brand of Atheism

[Apos]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I don’t think 'Ironically" means what you think it means. But no matter. Look, I don’t know you. I don’t know if I’d like you. We’re on a debate board and your participation is all I have to go by. I just refuse to use my time debating with someone who does so in a less than honest or honorable way.
[/QUOTE]

I feel the same way, but I can’t let that be an excuse to avoid dealing with arguments. Either you have good rejoinders to those arguments or you don’t, regardless of how we feel about each other personally.

[Kalhoun]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
That is a valid and important point IMHO. Perhaps those of us who don’t believe in angry sky being God need some new term or we need add a qualifier.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe you could call it “positive things” and the other side could call it “negative things.”

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Yes, that’s true. But if people did not use patriotism as a motivation, interpretation would not be involved at all. If we say that patriotism can be a bad motivation to do something, then we can argue against someone who uses it on that very basic level* as well as* their interpretation.
[/QUOTE]

I suppose we can but do you suppose it will be any more effective?

Yes, and it’s a very important difference. If I say the Bible may not be more worthy in content than any other book, then I can argue that point against a fundie who uses it too. A person who believes using the Bible that way is normal can’t. And that’s the thing; the use of the Bible as a text from which truth may be learned is normalised, so generally we don’t attack that. We attack the interpretation.

Think of the argument like a pyramid. Belief that the Bible can be used to learn truth is a bottom stone. Belief in a certain interpretation is a higher stone. We can all say “That interpretation is wrong, in my opinion” and so remove a higher stone; the pyramid may still stay together. But if we were to suggest that the basic belief is wrong, we can remove a lower stone and so have a greater chance to demolish the argument pyramid. What moderates do by making that bottom stone seem normal, reasonable, is make the whole argument seem more reasonable, and less vulnerable to criticism.

I understand what you’re saying. I’m certainly okay with challenging a foundational belief when there is plenty of hard evidence to challenge that belief. For some foundational beliefs there is no hard evidence. If you remove the Bible as the word of God you are still left with “God Is” or “the Holy Spirit guides us” Those are beliefs you can argue against but you do so without hard evidence.

Regardless, although I understand the principle I don’t agree that by sharing a belief about the value of the Bible the moderates are supporting the fundies. The web of shared and non shared beliefs is far to complex for that. The variables that reach from the Bible as the literal word of God to the Bible is a book written by men are too many. Aside from that even fundamentalists and myself would agree upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit even though we completely disagree about the nature and purpose of the Bible. How do you deal with that foundation? If we are to find one common ground from which to argue that applies to all equally my suggestion is , deal with the actions. Whatever the justification for bad behavior is we can make the group or the individual take responsibility for whatever choices they made, and how those choices effect others.
In a recent discussion with kanicbird we talked about different interpretations of the Bible. The point I tried to make was that we can work to change the rhetoric to make people take responsibility. When someone justifies their beliefs by quoting scripture and adding “according to God’s word” we can correctly qualify that statement with “according to *your * interpretation of what you consider to be God’s word.” This IMO forces them to take responsibility for the interpretation and whatever action that follows.
So, when people pull a verse out of context to “prove” God doesn’t approve of gays we point out that that is their interpretation of that passage, and that many others, others who value the Bible as they do, interpret it differently. Then it changes from “God’s will” and “truth” to their opinion and they must look at and take responsibility for denying the rights of others.

Other than dealing with the actions I’d say a common foundation would be truth. Most religion comes down to seeking the truth. I can’t imagine a believer acknowledging they don’t care about what is true or not. They insulate themselves from the facts and are to often in denial to protect tradition but that foundational belief of caring about the truth is a common ground we can start a discussion from.

So, actions and the truth. Something that all believers and nonbelievers share as a common foundation.

[Dangerosa]

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Couldn’t another person say that hate, decay, poverty, ruin, pain, war and desperation could be summed up by the same word? It seems to me that if we allow ourselves to define the word so freely, it does become rather meaningless, as Cosmosdan mentioned in reference to the Dawkins article.
[/QUOTE]

Sure

That’s pretty much the problem with God - its really hard to find a definition everyone is going to believe in. In my experience, even people who believe in a personified God have a wide variety of beliefs. You can really easily convince me that there is no “old testement” God (or that such a possibility is so unlikely as to be null - I’m an intellectual agnostic in the “not knowable” sense), I’m going to have a harder time getting convinced that there absolutely is not a “Spirit of Nature” (though, I myself, think that is a little hokey and don’t “go that far” in my personal belief).

That doesn’t mean I’m not a theist though - I think there is a connectedness to the universe that goes beyond any individual concept - and choose to define that as God.

You may find this sort of definition useless - I’ve found it very useful and handy in creating a personal philosophy. I’m not saying it has to work for anyone but me.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Apos]
Because in both cases, what’s begin legitimized is the idea that faith and belief about factual claims can respectably be at the core of a worldview. It has nothing to do with the specifics of the claims one goes on to make from this premise. That’s the whole problem even: one can then go on to make virtually any belief claim at all.
[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm trying to follow your wording here.

Having had many discussions with a few conservatives Christians I disagree. If I am talking to someone who believes the Bible is true then the issue for them is to reconcile the wide variety of verses into something somewhat coherent. They must reconcile God’s love and mercy with justice. They must reconcile their call for blind faith with “faith without works is dead” and “try the spirits to see if they are of God”

It’s just as easy and perhaps easier for an atheist to justify their actions with any belief as it is a believer.
I already stated much of my response above.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Jumping in here, the most important word in the above is “inspired.” This implies a special weight to the Bible. An atheist might well say there are good parts, but all of it needs to be judged using secular metrics. If the liberal tells us what the inspired parts (vs the uninspired parts) are, he is saying that we need to give these parts special weight. The Fundamentalist thinks more of the Bible is inspired, and it gets more weight, but that is a matter of scale - especially when the liberal has a hard time expressing how to tell the inspired parts from the uninspired parts. They usually do it using their personal moral reasoning.

The liberals support (unintentionally) the fundies methodology by accepting inspiration, and not providing a clear metric to divide inspired from non-inspired writing.
[/QUOTE]

Have you ever seen a work of art or heard a piece of music and thought “Wow that artist was certainly inspired”

For some saying they believe the Bible is inspired isn’t much different. They can also believe other great books or Handel’s Messiah is also inspired. We could limit the discussion to those who believe the Bible offers higher level of truth than other books and who tend to believe the Bible as we have it was part of God’s plan and God’s way of providing some direction for us. I still don’t agree that simply by sharing that belief the liberals are supporting the fundies. Underlying those beliefs about the Bible and supporting those are the beliefs that God, in some manner, exists, and that divine inspiration exists. You can address beliefs about the nature of the Bible with facts but how do you address the other underlying beliefs when they are unfalsifiable?

Personally I think a better perspective is to think of inspiration as coming from within rather than from some outside. As I mentioned above. We can make people take individual responsibility for their choices and actions regardless of what they use to justify them.

For me thats a critical difference. To make people realize they can’t turn over their hearts and minds to their pastors and religious leaders and hope that somehow frees them from responsibility. It doesn’t.

According to God’s word, must be restated as “according to my {or your} interpretation of God’s word” making them take personal responsibility for whatever conclusion they come to.

In my discussion with my conservative Christian sister she kept quoting from Bible study guides when trying to decide what Bible passages meant. I pointed out to her that those study guides were written by men and ultimately were just the authors opinions about the Bible. Why should I or anyone embrace their interpretation anymore than my own? When it comes down to my life, my conscience, my relationship with God and others and what I consider true, what person should I give that responsibility to? Who should I go to and hand over my heart and mind to and say “you tell me what’s right and what’s not right because I don’t feel capable of deciding for myself”.

Concerning your comment on secular metrics. The implication seems to be that is a superior method and will lean more toward the positive. I don’t know if that’s true. I don’t believe there’s any way to measure it.
Can’t secular metrics just as easily be slanted and corrupted to serve evil as any religious belief? Were the killing of the innocent under communism less horrific and less morally reprehensible than those in the Inquisition?

If the goal is to find a common ground by which people of all faiths and no faiths can come together to discuss things I’ve already suggested, actions and their consequences and truth.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Maybe you could call it “positive things” and the other side could call it “negative things.”
[/QUOTE]

I’m okay with that , especially when a discussion includes both believers and nonbelievers. We should be able to discuss the words of Jesus or Buddha from a philosophical standpoint without embracing or demeaning any beliefs about divinity.

OTOH, I don’t think a believer being forthright about their beliefs is a bad thing. I just think if real communication with those who don’t share the same beliefs is a worthwhile goal we must work to find a common ground and some common language .

Perhaps finding out what beliefs we share is at least as valuable as focusing on the ones we don’t.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
Sure

That’s pretty much the problem with God - its really hard to find a definition everyone is going to believe in. In my experience, even people who believe in a personified God have a wide variety of beliefs. You can really easily convince me that there is no “old testement” God (or that such a possibility is so unlikely as to be null - I’m an intellectual agnostic in the “not knowable” sense), I’m going to have a harder time getting convinced that there absolutely is not a “Spirit of Nature” (though, I myself, think that is a little hokey and don’t “go that far” in my personal belief).

That doesn’t mean I’m not a theist though - I think there is a connectedness to the universe that goes beyond any individual concept - and choose to define that as God.

You may find this sort of definition useless - I’ve found it very useful and handy in creating a personal philosophy. I’m not saying it has to work for anyone but me.
[/QUOTE]

Right. How might we describe that connectedness without using a term that also suggests some all powerful master of the universe who is out there watching us?

Over the past year I’ve wondered about this. I think there may be a real need for those who don’t really embrace the “sky god” concept to find a way to express that connectedness without supporting and continuing the “sky god” meme.

[Apos]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Having had many discussions with a few conservatives Christians I disagree. If I am talking to someone who believes the Bible is true then the issue for them is to reconcile the wide variety of verses into something somewhat coherent. They must reconcile God’s love and mercy with justice. They must reconcile their call for blind faith with “faith without works is dead” and “try the spirits to see if they are of God”

It’s just as easy and perhaps easier for an atheist to justify their actions with any belief as it is a believer.
I already stated much of my response above.
[/QUOTE]

But that’s not even the issue. The issue isn’t whether atheists can have unsupported irrational beliefs, because of course they can, like anyone. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a goal of a more rational, empirical to fight that sort of thing. But moderates have crippled the argument against unfounded irrational beliefs by legitimizing the idea that you can put at the center of your worldview a whole host of ideas that simply cannot be supported by the common reality we all live in. Hence the splintering of our reality: countless sects and people living under a different set of “facts.” Fundamentalists don’t live on a “worse” splinter now, or a more delusional one, they live on just one that happens to include a set of facts that makes it rational to kill in the name of God, or spurn your gay children or whatever.

The moderate worldview, of course, does not include the particular facts that lead to such things, in large part, I suspect, because moderates are generally more careful in applying their personal moral judgments when choosing what to believe and what not to. But that’s just their choice, not something special that can be argued for, particularly to people that don’t share those moral judgments anyway. You can argue with fundamentalists over what the Bible “really” says till the cow comes home: there is no reason to expect this discussion to go anywhere, because at the heart of these positions is not some empirical system of reason or historicity, but rather faith beliefs.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Apos]
But that’s not even the issue. The issue isn’t whether atheists can have unsupported irrational beliefs, because of course they can, like anyone. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a goal of a more rational, empirical to fight that sort of thing. But moderates have crippled the argument against unfounded irrational beliefs by legitimizing the idea that you can put at the center of your world view a whole host of ideas that simply cannot be supported by the common reality we all live in. Hence the splintering of our reality: countless sects and people living under a different set of “facts.” Fundamentalists don’t live on a “worse” splinter now, or a more delusional one, they live on just one that happens to include a set of facts that makes it rational to kill in the name of God, or spurn your gay children or whatever.
[/QUOTE]

It certainly relates to the issue. The point being made seems to be because the moderates share a common belief that remains unsupported by evidence they are somehow lending support to the fundies extremism. Does that mean when atheist also have unsupported beliefs they are supporting the fundies as well? If that’s the case then all of humanity shares the burden because all people base their belief system on some facts, some emotion, and their personal objective and subjective experiences. We never have and I can’t see that we ever will make our value judgments based only on evidence. So exactly where is this common reality we all live in? Your worldview? Mine? Does it contain what we don’t know and can’t prove as well as what we think we know at this point in history?

It’s fine to examine beliefs under the light of available scientific evidence but that will still leave certain possible beliefs unfalsifiable. Just as you don’t want anyone pushing their own world view onto you as “the correct one” when it comes to unfalsifiable beliefs shouldn’t people be able come down on either side of the equation without being ridiculed?

The moderate worldview, of course, does not include the particular facts that lead to such things, in large part, I suspect, because moderates are generally more careful in applying their personal moral judgments when choosing what to believe and what not to. But that’s just their choice, not something special that can be argued for, particularly to people that don’t share those moral judgments anyway. You can argue with fundamentalists over what the Bible “really” says till the cow comes home: there is no reason to expect this discussion to go anywhere, because at the heart of these positions is not some empirical system of reason or historicity, but rather faith beliefs.

Their faith beliefs still center around the truth and in that there is an opportunity to gradually change hearts and minds if we stick to what we have actual evidence for. IMO the belief that the Bible is the literal word of God , or even intended by God to be our primary guide and authority is false. I can specifically address that issue because is real solid evidence against that. Ultimately that leads back to god belief and a belief in the Holy Spirit. Those a both unfalsifiable. Where does that leave us when it comes to our common reality? IMO the common foundation is actions and coming together to agree that no matter what our religious or philosophical leanings we must take responsibility for our choices and how they affect others no matter what our justification is.

It is certainly very difficult to overcome tradition and the emotional attachment people have but I think by understanding their belief you have a better chance of making some kind of dent or planting a seed.

[Kalhoun]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Right. How might we describe that connectedness without using a term that also suggests some all powerful master of the universe who is out there watching us?

Over the past year I’ve wondered about this. I think there may be a real need for those who don’t really embrace the “sky god” concept to find a way to express that connectedness without supporting and continuing the “sky god” meme.
[/QUOTE]

But the universe isn’t all sunshine and lollipops. To feel connected to only the “good” things like art, beauty, and love is to ignore the rest of the intensity that is the human experience. Whether god is a “personified” being or energy, there’s more than nice stuff happening to us and we’re all connected to it.

[Fatwater_Fewl]

Atheist here. Raised in a fundamentalist Christian home. (I know I’m checking in late to this thread, but hey — I’ve been away from the boards for a couple of years and the topic interests me, so I thought I’d at least respond to the OP.)

I have no problem with Richard Dawkins’ approach to atheism, nor with his decision to tell the world why he is an atheist and why he believes atheism should be the position taken by rational minds. I find his writing to be insightful, timely, well-reasoned and often hilarious. The man has a fine dry wit (which I think is exemplified by the title “The God Delusion”).

In spite of being a poorly educated fool (and the onus for that lies wholly on my own head) I believe that I have gained sufficient recourse to reason that I am able to see that the universe is a process of, and therefore subject to, physical laws and to understand that breaking those laws would void the process.

Atheism is a position I’ve come to over 30 years of occasional pondering, wondering, wandering, and observing the world around me. I called myself an agnostic for a long time, but in the last couple of years I’ve realized that the agnostic label does not satisfy me because I no longer believe that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. I have no idea how (or even if it makes any sense to say) the universe came into existence but I believe any questions on the matter are explicable. Though likely not in my lifetime. So be it.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
But the universe isn’t all sunshine and lollipops. To feel connected to only the “good” things like art, beauty, and love is to ignore the rest of the intensity that is the human experience. Whether god is a “personified” being or energy, there’s more than nice stuff happening to us and we’re all connected to it.
[/QUOTE]

Never said or implied otherwise. Sorry if thats how you read it. I don’t see any more or less negative when a believer or atheists commits the same heinous act. I don’t see any more or less positive when a believer or atheist commits the same act of compassion.

Who we are is expressed in dealing with the moment whatever it is, good or bad.

[Kalhoun]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Never said or implied otherwise. Sorry if thats how you read it. I don’t see any more or less negative when a believer or atheists commits the same heinous act. I don’t see any more or less positive when a believer or atheist commits the same act of compassion.

Who we are is expressed in dealing with the moment whatever it is, good or bad.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry…that was more in response to Dangerosa’s quote you were responding to.

[Apos]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The point being made seems to be because the moderates share a common belief that remains unsupported by evidence they are somehow lending support to the fundies extremism.
[/quote]

Yes, because they empower that methodology.

Does that mean when atheist also have unsupported beliefs they are supporting the fundies as well?

Well, sure, but when was the last time you heard an atheist defending faith as something laudable?

If that’s the case then all of humanity shares the burden because all people base their belief system on some facts, some emotion, and their personal objective and subjective experiences.

Not the same thing at all. We’re talking about differences in material facts. Of course everyone has different values (though often not that different). But faith encourages the idea of acting on different material realities.

So exactly where is this common reality we all live in? Your worldview? Mine? Does it contain what we don’t know and can’t prove as well as what we think we know at this point in history?

I don’t think it’s really that difficult or obscure. We all live in the same physical world. When you kick your foot against a rock, it doesn’t pass right through it and neither does mine.

It’s fine to examine beliefs under the light of available scientific evidence but that will still leave certain possible beliefs unfalsifiable. Just as you don’t want anyone pushing their own world view onto you as “the correct one” when it comes to unfalsifiable beliefs shouldn’t people be able come down on either side of the equation without being ridiculed?

I don’t know what the point of ridicule is in specific, but certainly, yes, people SHOULD face criticism for “coming down” on an idea that has no evidence for it, let alone ACTING on such beliefs.

IMO the belief that the Bible is the literal word of God , or even intended by God to be our primary guide and authority is false.

IMO, the debate is ridiculous to begin with. You don’t have any actual knowledge about there being a God, and yet you are insisting that you know what is true and what is false about something you don’t even know exists? And you are going to argue the point with someone? On what basis?

I can specifically address that issue because is real solid evidence against that.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t, but it hardly matters once faith is in the picture.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Apos]
Yes, because they empower that methodology.
[/QUOTE]

As does everyone who holds an some belief without evidence? Which would be what percent of the population?

Well, sure, but when was the last time you heard an atheist defending faith as something laudable?

When an atheist holds a belief they can’t support with evidence that’s faith. Atheist form their internal belief system in that same way Christians do without the religious labels.

Not the same thing at all. We’re talking about differences in material facts. Of course everyone has different values (though often not that different). But faith encourages the idea of acting on different material realities.

How much effect does it have? Regardless of what tradition and myth believers hold onto they are still responsible for their actions in the material world.

I don’t think it’s really that difficult or obscure. We all live in the same physical world. When you kick your foot against a rock, it doesn’t pass right through it and neither does mine.

The moral or immoral decisions that people make aren’t about material things. We’re talking about behavior.

I don’t know what the point of ridicule is in specific, but certainly, yes, people SHOULD face criticism for “coming down” on an idea that has no evidence for it, let alone ACTING on such beliefs.

I believe that beliefs should be examined and questioned. Since God belief is unfalsifiable I think that should be left to the individual. Subjective evidence and personal experience is a valid reason for me to make decisions for myself about what I believe. Because it is subjective and personal it is not something I can thrust upon others. However, my actions and how those actions affect others and how their actions affect me is something that can be challenged.

IMO, the debate is ridiculous to begin with. You don’t have any actual knowledge about there being a God, and yet you are insisting that you know what is true and what is false about something you don’t even know exists? And you are going to argue the point with someone? On what basis?

The same way we do in GD. We start with whatever axioms the person has and address them.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t, but it hardly matters once faith is in the picture.

We have lots of physical historical evidence about where the Bible came from and the changes it’s been through. That speaks directly to a persons belief of it being the literal word of God. There is a difference between a belief without evidence and belief in spite of conflicting evidence. IMO by stressing existing evidence we can make progress in addressing specific details of belief.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I suppose we can but do you suppose it will be any more effective?
[/quote]
At convincing them they’re wrong? I very much doubt it. But what it does do is make the argument more reasonable, and makes their position look much more unreasonable. Probably won’t convince a hard believer, but it might make give people something more to think about. And hey, getting people to consider the situation more is always good.

Regardless, although I understand the principle I don’t agree that by sharing a belief about the value of the Bible the moderates are supporting the fundies.

I think you’re hung up on putting it so starkly; I’m not suggesting that moderates are deliberately trying to help fundies, or that if moderates didn’t use that methodology fundies would be treated as the fools they are. I’m merely suggesting that it’s an aiding factor.

The web of shared and non shared beliefs is far to complex for that. The variables that reach from the Bible as the literal word of God to the Bible is a book written by men are too many.

What you seem to be saying is “I guess it might have an affect, but there’s all these other things that have an affect too, so in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter”. Possibly. But that doesn’t deny the idea that it is supportive of that methodology.

Aside from that even fundamentalists and myself would agree upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit even though we completely disagree about the nature and purpose of the Bible. How do you deal with that foundation?

Well, by arguing that the Holy Spirit doesn’t exist, I would imagine. But this is besides the point. I have little interest in arguing for or against the existence of the Holy Spirit (unless pushed). On the other hand, I do have an interest in trying to argue against fundamentalism. Every little helps.

Besides, this sidesteps the actual point being made; it’s not a question of “How can we remove all these foundations?”, though it can be at times. It’s a question of “Does one, reasonable, well-thought of group using one methodology make a moronic, hateful group look better if they use the same methodology?” I’d say yes - and I don’t see how you could think otherwise.

If we are to find one common ground from which to argue that applies to all equally my suggestion is , deal with the actions. Whatever the justification for bad behavior is we can make the group or the individual take responsibility for whatever choices they made, and how those choices effect others.

All good words. But you’re talking about something other than the issue at hand.

Other than dealing with the actions I’d say a common foundation would be truth. Most religion comes down to seeking the truth.

I disagree. I think most religion comes down to telling people what the truth is. Philisophical people may seek the truth, and that can include religious believers. But religion as a whole seems pretty ready to tell people that they have these certain answers and certain truths.

[David_Simmons]

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
So how do you feel about it? This is kind of like a poll, so please state your religious background(or lack there of) before giving your opinion.
[/QUOTE]
I was raised in a nominally Methodist family, but we weren’t really all that hung up on it. I went to Sunday School for a coupld or three years and that pretty much convinced me that I didn’t want anything to do with religion.

I find unconvincing what purports to be evidence for God as pictured in the Old Testament. Therefore, I act as if such a Being doesn’t exist.

My wife attends church regularly and probably worries about my going to Hell. However, if it turns out I’m wrong it won’t matter to her. She is guaranteed happiness in Heaven so she won’t even remember me when she gets there. Or if she does remember, being guaranteed happiness, she will be glad I’m in Hell.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Have you ever seen a work of art or heard a piece of music and thought “Wow that artist was certainly inspired”

For some saying they believe the Bible is inspired isn’t much different. They can also believe other great books or Handel’s Messiah is also inspired. We could limit the discussion to those who believe the Bible offers higher level of truth than other books and who tend to believe the Bible as we have it was part of God’s plan and God’s way of providing some direction for us. I still don’t agree that simply by sharing that belief the liberals are supporting the fundies. Underlying those beliefs about the Bible and supporting those are the beliefs that God, in some manner, exists, and that divine inspiration exists. You can address beliefs about the nature of the Bible with facts but how do you address the other underlying beliefs when they are unfalsifiable?

[/quote]

Obviously secular inspiration is different from Biblical inspiration. Our president seems to think he is inspired, and see how that turned out.

I’m of course not claiming that liberals directly support fundamentalists. But accepting inspiration opens up a window, and the fundies have a simpler story to tell. And, is there any evidence for any inspiration at all, or is that a matter of faith. If X amount is acceptable by faith, why not Y > X amount?

For me thats a critical difference. To make people realize they can’t turn over their hearts and minds to their pastors and religious leaders and hope that somehow frees them from responsibility. It doesn’t.

According to God’s word, must be restated as “according to my {or your} interpretation of God’s word” making them take personal responsibility for whatever conclusion they come to.

I doubt that a fundamentalist would have a problem with taking responsibility. I suspect that many of them would have these beliefs anyhow, and find the Bible very supportive. Indeed, they may ask you if you are willing to take responsibility for going against God’s word.

In my discussion with my conservative Christian sister she kept quoting from Bible study guides when trying to decide what Bible passages meant. I pointed out to her that those study guides were written by men and ultimately were just the authors opinions about the Bible. Why should I or anyone embrace their interpretation anymore than my own? When it comes down to my life, my conscience, my relationship with God and others and what I consider true, what person should I give that responsibility to? Who should I go to and hand over my heart and mind to and say “you tell me what’s right and what’s not right because I don’t feel capable of deciding for myself”.

I bet they’d say that you need to hand over your heart to god, and many of them have gotten themselves into states where they feel that God’s will has filled them, and told them that their course is correct.

[quote]

Concerning your comment on secular metrics. The implication seems to be that is a superior method and will lean more toward the positive. I don’t know if that’s true. I don’t believe there’s any way to measure it.
Can’t secular metrics just as easily be slanted and corrupted to serve evil as any religious belief? Were the killing of the innocent under communism less horrific and less morally reprehensible than those in the Inquisition? Communism had its own set of absolute rules, which trumped ethics for them. I’m not claiming that anyone can plunk down the perfect set of ethical rules, but purely secular ones contain the chance that they are wrong, and non-absolute ethics are safer than absolute ethics.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
As does everyone who holds an some belief without evidence? Which would be what percent of the population?

[/quote]

If fundies believed, or acted as if they had belief without evidence, we’d have a better world. But they go beyond belief into claims of truth - at least until you manage to corner one into admitting something is faith based.

As an example, look at kanicbird’s debating style.

When an atheist holds a belief they can’t support with evidence that’s faith. Atheist form their internal belief system in that same way Christians do without the religious labels.

Not if he’s willing to give it up after getting evidence to the contrary.

How much effect does it have? Regardless of what tradition and myth believers hold onto they are still responsible for their actions in the material world.

And when has this stopped someone from refusing to recant a belief, on the good side, to blowing up an abortion clinic, on the bad side? Maybe they think suffering is worth the eternal reward.