Based on your posting history, I’m fairly sure that in any serious discussion I could point out far more “bad things” done by religious people (including Christians) than you could. The difference would be that I would be able to recognize those things that were driven by religious belief and distinguish them from things that were done prompted by politics, culture, or other social pressures or motivations. I have read histories that were pro, con, and neutral. There is no evidence that you have read anything that did not support your previously established prejudices.
Your claim that people who grew up with religious instruction were bad because they had religious isntruction is a pretty clear example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and invites the (equally fallacious) claim that the atrocities that have occurred in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc. are the result of atheism.
Note that my claim that you are ignorant of religious history was an example of how you are ignorant of all history. Your entire approach seems to be one of finding something you think is bad and then finding sound biites to support it.
I used logic. (try it some time). You identified a failing of one group with which you do not want to associate. You then admitted that the same trait is a feature of your personality. Clearly, you are simply in denial regarding your true nature.
You are not a psychic, as far as I know. Thus, while I believe that it only makes sense to believe that someone’s choices has been influenced by there heritages, an outright claim that they were not seems odd.
No it doesn’t. First off, while it is true that after one thing follows another, that doesn’t mean it was caused by the first thing, it may have been exactly that way after all. Claiming that a ball hit a window which then broke, may be assuming that one was caused by the other, but that assumption doe not make it wrong. The usual proof that one didn’t cause the other would be to show that even without the factor blamed, the same thing would have happened. I just don’t see it, while it seems like you have satisfied yourself that it would, baised on some proof I have not seen posting here, or in my studdy of history. Such “proof” would be highly subject to interpretation, so I do not see either of us agreeing with the other anytime soon. Also, considering the length of most communist regimes, it would seem that most of the people who made choices and decisions on behalf of such regimes have religion to blame for their mentalities.
My entire view that the world is harmed by religion is due to the fact that the world is in bad shape, and religious teachings coincide with bad choices maid over the world. Also, I don’t see how my quoting bible verses I have problems with is “sound biting” After all, even if such a verse is misunderstood, it is still likely to be taken as “gospel” by someone who is then influenced by it.
No, while I might paint one group with a large brush, as I see many republicans doing, I do not think a republic is the best form of government, or even a good one, such as we have in the united states.
You misspelled “occasionally” {previews like hell to make sure Gaudere’s Law doesn’t catch me out}. It isn’t so much your poor spelling {although it is pretty annoying} as your generally slipshod grammar: seriously, having to read each of your many posts about three times over to try and grasp whatever point you’re trying to make isn’t helping your cause any. Shorter paragraphs and Spellcheck are your friends.
Well, they were my friends until they failed to return the money they borrowed from me. But seriously, I have looked over my past posts on this thread, and I see no major problems. I am not saying I spell perfectly all the time, just that I am easily able to understand myself, as well as others here who post without perfect spelling. (Where’s the ::shrug:: icon?) Besides which, some people seem to like my writing style. That reminds me, Hunter Hawk, thanks for the suggestion, but I like the give and take I find here more than I would simply comments on a blog entry. I relieve that there is only so much on such highly subjective issues, but still, when I find some, it’s nice.
Anyway, getting back on topic, I have a new entry here. “Social Morality v. Morality” or perhaps a better title would be, “Something nonexistent vs. something useful.” The issue came up on this board in the past, but most recently on the topic “At what point am I responsible for the behavior of groups I join?.” In it, I claimed that you are responsible the moment you realize you are a member. I would have though that when christians agreed with the OP that the discussion would end, but instead it went all over the place when in post 111 someone took up the issue of morality. To simplify things, my position was that morality is personal, which gave me a pretty good way of arguing against female circumcision, incidentally. The opposing argument appeared to be based on a false view of the meaning of the words “social mores.” The main definition of the word, and its origin seemed to support my view, while a secondary definition supported his. I was a little frustrating. He just repeated his points, while I repeated mine and elaborated. You can look over posts to see more, but to simplify the issue:
The phrase “society’s mores” applies to the ways of the people, as in the origin of the word, “mos,” latin for “ways.” That is not the same things as saying something is immoral just because society has a problem with it, such as interacila marriage 70 years ago or that something is moral when society is all for it, such as female circumcission.
For clarification: what is this thread for? If you just want to debate religion’s role in the world today, you might not want to start off by saying that you see things just so and nothing is going to change your mind. If it’s to find like-minded people, you’re not being very clear about it. If in general it’s just to speak your opinions on how damaging religion is, as somebody else said, a blog could be useful.
As it stands now, I highly doubt there is anybody who isn’t 100% clear on your opinion of religion. You are very vocal about it, and I see nothing wrong with this, particularly since you were kind enough to start a separate thread about it. However, it would be nice if you were at least a little open-minded regarding religion; it can be frustrating to read the same kind of posts from you knowing that because of my beliefs, you think I am harmful to society. Further complicating matters is the knowledge that nothing I can do or say will ever change your opinion.
This board is for figting ignorance and opening minds, which is what I post here for. However, I don’t see myself doing so on matters of religon, just in everything else. Technology, law, music, entertainment, and so on. As for why I have been clairifying things, in many debates I repeat my stance, while another person asks for more and more defintion, trying to poke holes in my conception. I figured after this happend, I could post my defintion of that idea, and if after it seems settled, a person can post here to question me, rather than diverting the thread we were argueing on, which has now drifted onto something else. Pittings are also useful for that, but it can be much more civil here.
This comes off to me as saying that all religious people are ignorant and in need of somebody else to widen their world view. Is this what you believe or am I reading this incorrectly?
imagine
by
John Lennon
Imagine there’s no heaven,
It’s easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today…
Thanks for the advice, RancidYakButterTeaParty, but my life is already peaceful. My inability is not some all consuming hatred that leaves me unable to sleep at night, but merely a very small part of my life that I enjoy debating here. Now, as long as you have some lyrics up, here is some one I like:
Writen by: http://www.merseyworld.com/imagine/ http://www.jovi2000.com/lennon/lennon_songs.htm
P.S. audiobottle, I am saying that I wish to have my mind opened on secular topics. The fighting ignorance thing is what’s in the mission statement of the column, remember? You know, “Fighting Ignorance since 1973”? I would enjoy making people think twice about the validity of religion, but I fully realize that my posting style is not designed to do so. It’s more to combat statement’s like, “We should respect the office of the pope, regardless of what he has done.” Now, while I regard religious people as working towards a nonexistent goal, I don’t really see myself as needing to open their minds, for their own holy texts will do that for them. Not in the sense that it will make them wiser, but in the sense that I, and many other actually read the holy books, and much that drove us away from religion in them.
P.S. Remeber the topic "Teeming Millions Gallery – testers needed"? Well, I have added my picture to it, making it much easier for people to shake my hand, or to punch my in the face, whichever they feel more inclined to do, should they meet me in real life.
I don’t think studying more would change your opinions or your beliefs in any way. I do not even wish that your opinions or beliefs were different. My point has been that your arguments are shallow and display a lack of perception of actual history or an understanding of the motivations or beliefs of other people. I am not claiming that you would change your view of religion if you studied more; I am pointing out that you will change no one else’s view of religion with your ineffectual attacks.
It is not as though I have followed you around rebutting every uninformed attack you have launched against religion. (If I had, my post count would be about 1,800 posts higher.) However, when you attempt to hijack one thread with a pointer to one more inane thread of self-aggrandizing self-congratulation in which you believe you have struck some great blow against religion, then I am liable to point out that you have made no such great blow.
As for my “unexplained non-sequitur” above, it was, indeed, self explanatory. You claimed to have “responded” to each point in my previous post. In your second section, you did a lot of (rather unsuccessful) hand-waving to try to distance yourself from the charge of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In the next section, you proved my point by resorting to using that fallacy once again, saying, in effect: People have always acted badly and people have always had religion, so it must be religion’s fault. You ignore the possibilities that it might have been religion that kept them from behaving even more badly or that neither ever led to the other and you do nothing to demonstrate a cause and effect other than to say that the one was present so it must have caused the other. In other words, you danced around and came back to the same error from which you began.
As a personal observation from which one draws one’s own world views, I have no problem with you making the connections that you have. Everyone draws on their own experiences to define the world in ways that make sense to them. I actually am willing to respect that opinion as one to which you have come honestly. (Just as I respect the views of the other hundreds of atheists and skeptics who post here.) However, coming to this board and declaring that your own “reality” is the Truth while resorting to out-of-context sound bites and a failure to demonstrate any serious understanding places you in the same category as the periodic Creationist who drops by to rant against the errors of science, all the while demonstrating an ignorance of the facts of the topic.
It sounds like you are saying “You haven’t studied enough history. If you had, you would realize that my way is right.” However, perhaps I have just been arguing with people like Bricker for too long. People who basically say, “All roads lead to my conclusion.” In fact, I understand that the following is more accurate. “If you would study more, you would be able to make better arguments.” Is that correct?
Now, about your claims of thread hijacking. When one religious group states their theology as “We are always right, and only we go to heaven. We know that doesn’t sound nice, but don’t worry, every good person is really one of us, whether they know it or not” , well, that’s just not very nice. Now, it may be true, in the eyes of the Catholic church, but it still goes against reason. I feel that when someone points out that idea, it is important to point out that most major religions state that, and given the conclusion reached on the post I linked was that religions contradict each other, I felt that it was quite on topic.
So, you claim I am dancing/hand waving, trying to prove my point
You claim:
Yeah, right. You can go one forever, pointing to each and every person I point to, and claim that theological conceptions of outsiders as demons, biblical commandments to strike down enemies, and an innate hatred of any knowledge that comes from personal observation, rather then from a trust in god had nothing to do with anything, and I will do something quite simular back. You can point to all the texts you want to claiming that such-and-such a situation was caused by the politics of the time, and I ask what got people to that point.
No. As I said, one thing does not necessarily cause the other. That does not mean that didn’t cause it, either. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy means that just because I step on a crack, and I let found that my mother was injured that afternoon, the two most likely have nothing to do with each other. However, it is my claim that I can point to a person who was raised in a christian household, who later killed many people, either by being a crusader in the middle ages, or a modern day serial killer that having had such acts of god as (Hosea 13:16)“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”
(Isaiah 13:13-22) Every one that is found shall be thrust through….Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes….and their wives ravished. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children."
read to the person as a child may be to blame for the person behavior. Giving the full listing of similar verses would take too much time, but looking over just these two, it is hard to believe that any book which contains such stuff can also teach, good moral lessons. That is not the kind of proof you are looking for, but it certainly seem convincing. Now, your argument seems to be that mankind would be worse off without religion. I believe that mankind is getting better in spite of religion. However, this is an argument I can never settled.
Logical fallacies are a problem in discourse. However, when I see a long list of conquerors in the name of religion, and a short list of megalomaniacs who happened to be atheists, it is hard not to draw the conclusion that religion must have something to do with it. Now, that is not a argument based on logic, it is an argument based on what simply makes sense to me. That sounds like I am saying that one caused the other, which, if I was saying it was a verifiable historical fact, would be true. I am saying that religion causes just about all the worlds problems, as far as we can tell from what we know of history and indeed that is what I feel. However, not being an omnipotent being, I cannot say that they did, only that it is so sure, I would be willing to be my life on it. However, I am not an omnipotent being, and so, all I can do is point to a long list of slaughters done in the name of religion and say “it all adds up. The proof that such an argument is a fallacy is that theoretically, you can show “that the correlation is coincidental by showing that: (i)
the effect would have occurred even if the cause did not occur, or (ii) that the effect was caused by something other than the suggested cause.” However, since all your proof is subjective, as is mine. I feel confident that my edge, of showing psychologically harmful bible verse leans the argument in my favor.
I do indeed claim that my view is the truth, and that religion is just one big lie. However, I disagree that any of my “sound-bites” have been out of context, and this claim of “a lack of serious understanding” is purely subjective in your opinion. How do you define “serious understanding”? It sounds, again, like it is defined by agreeing with you, but I may be misunderstanding.
Yes, you finally get it. I have no interest in changing your beliefs. I am simply tired of encountering your sophistry (along with your juvenile drive-bys) in threads where there are people making serious points.
A typical example of the sort of inaccurate–and easily disproved–claims that you enjoy posting in demonstration of your ignorance. The Catholic church does not claim that only Catholics go to heaven (and excommunicated the last Catholic priest who tried to claim it). The RCC also does not claim that “every good person is really one of us.” Now, the RCC does state that it alone contains the fullness of the truth of the message of God and I have no problem with someone viewing that as arrogant. However, when you tack on your other little claims that are without basis in fact, you look silly.
I have taken no position on whether humanity would be better or worse without religion. I simply noted that your claim was, indeed, an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc–which it was.
As I have noted, each person comes to their own personal view of the way the world works and I have no problem with your having come to your worldview from your experiences. However, when you decide to dispense your “wisdom” based on nothing more than your personal worldview and then pretend that you have established a Truth, when you are really doing nothing more than providing a counterpart to those believers who also speak authoritatively based on nothing more than their personal worldview, then I will call you on it. (And rest assured that I have criticized believers, even Catholics, when they have claimed their worldview as Truth when their support is little more than their personal feelings or when it has been “supported” by erroneous claims about what others believe.)
When you can make your opponents argument in a way that faithfully presents their actual views without simply mocking them and can then dismantle that serious argument with logic or facts, then you will have demonstrated a serious understanding. As long as your posts present your opponents in ways that they could not recognize their own beliefs, you are simply fighting caricatures and not their actual beliefs.
If you say god exist, it’s yours. If I say he/she/it doesn’t, it’s mine.
No matter how many boring ‘debates’ we’ll have about this, neither one of us can prove it, right?
But seriously, I have looked over my past posts on this thread, and I see no major problems. I am not saying I spell perfectly all the time, just that I am easily able to understand myself, as well as others here who post without perfect spelling. (Where’s the ::shrug:: icon?) Besides which, some people seem to like my writing style. That reminds me, Hunter Hawk, thanks for the suggestion, but I like the give and take I find here more than I would simply comments on a blog entry. I relieve that there is only so much on such highly subjective issues, but still, when I find some, it’s nice.