Vigile Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I confess to a personal hatred of Hitchens. IMO, he was a neo con hack that made the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that people who are born into a bad religion necessarily become bad people that must be corrected with bombs and modern torture methods. That puts him on equal footing with the inquisitionists. For the life of me I don't understand how someone can claim to be a free thinker and engage in thoughtless propaganda efforts. I imagine he saw it as accomplishing some greater good, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with such intentions. I thought Hitchens was a Marxist? I have no idea where he stood economically, but he was used by the Bush admin quite extensively selling the war effort as a noble cause. He either did it for the money or fame or because he thought Muslim nations like Iraq need the west to set them straight. Probably all three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I confess to a personal hatred of Hitchens. IMO, he was a neo con hack that made the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that people who are born into a bad religion necessarily become bad people that must be corrected with bombs and modern torture methods. That puts him on equal footing with the inquisitionists. For the life of me I don't understand how someone can claim to be a free thinker and engage in thoughtless propaganda efforts. I imagine he saw it as accomplishing some greater good, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with such intentions. I thought Hitchens was a Marxist? Off-topic a moment, I watched an awesome three-part doco the other night that you and Vigile might be interested in. It's called Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism. The link's here: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/heaven-earth-rise-fall-socialism/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 What do you mean when you say he doesn't know what he's talking about? His arguments show ignorance about the religions he's attacking; that, and some of his arguments against religion that are meant to be death blows really aren't good arguments against faith (In my most humble opinion). An example that I can think of off the top of my head is when he argues that the only reason you are religion X is because you are born in Y. If you were born in Z you'd be A. Just because I would statistically be another faith in another location or time doesn't change the fact that religion X could actually be "the faith". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 What do you mean when you say he doesn't know what he's talking about? His arguments show ignorance about the religions he's attacking; that, and some of his arguments against religion that are meant to be death blows really aren't good arguments against faith (In my most humble opinion). An example that I can think of off the top of my head is when he argues that the only reason you are religion X is because you are born in Y. If you were born in Z you'd be A. Just because I would statistically be another faith in another location or time doesn't change the fact that religion X could actually be "the faith". I don't see the problem with that logic. It's not a slam dunk, because as you point out, it could be true. However, it is very much accurate that the vast majority don't choose their faith, they are indoctrinated with it. That's a pretty strong point that is important to make and should lend pause to thinking people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 What do you mean when you say he doesn't know what he's talking about? His arguments show ignorance about the religions he's attacking; that, and some of his arguments against religion that are meant to be death blows really aren't good arguments against faith (In my most humble opinion). An example that I can think of off the top of my head is when he argues that the only reason you are religion X is because you are born in Y. If you were born in Z you'd be A. Just because I would statistically be another faith in another location or time doesn't change the fact that religion X could actually be "the faith". I think I know the argument you are referring to- it's on one of his docos, right? My personal take was that the point he was trying to make is that the geographic location of the area in which you are born is likely to have a high impact on which religion you are raised in, the how that religion impacts upon your worldview and culture. I think he's really just questioning the veracity of any religious belief system, and trying to point out how silly it is to raise children with those beliefs, instead of letting them be free to work it out for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I read "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins. Those are good books if you don't know a lot about evolution. They helped me in my deconversion process, although I think by the time I read them I was already convinced evolution was a fact. I am less pleased by Dawkins' speeches I have seen about religion. He seems to be attacking a very specific form of Christianity - I mean, it only goes so far. Hitchens was a smart guy, but I have some problems with him. I think I read one of his books on God - "God is Not Good"? maybe, and it was very shallow and not so well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I read "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins. Those are good books if you don't know a lot about evolution. They helped me in my deconversion process, although I think by the time I read them I was already convinced evolution was a fact. I am less pleased by Dawkins' speeches I have seen about religion. He seems to be attacking a very specific form of Christianity - I mean, it only goes so far. Hitchens was a smart guy, but I have some problems with him. I think I read one of his books on God - "God is Not Good"? maybe, and it was very shallow and not so well done. Yes, but Dawkins' point is that moderate christians don't stand up enough to the fundamental extremists, and as such enable them. And he's got a point there, I think. Not only that, but even moderate christianity can be very damaging to a person. However, he does cede to British Anglicanism, but his concern is that that the Anglicans themselves are beginning to become increasingly influenced by extremism. Like I said before, I haven't started on Hitchens. And next on my list is Harris, and then probably Dennett. At the moment, I'm tending to focus on their books on religion, because I'd like to hear where they all stand on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurari Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 What do you mean when you say he doesn't know what he's talking about? His arguments show ignorance about the religions he's attacking; that, and some of his arguments against religion that are meant to be death blows really aren't good arguments against faith (In my most humble opinion). An example that I can think of off the top of my head is when he argues that the only reason you are religion X is because you are born in Y. If you were born in Z you'd be A. Just because I would statistically be another faith in another location or time doesn't change the fact that religion X could actually be "the faith". I've honestly never thought of it that way. I always thought that sort of thing was in comment to how governments are run. Like how we ban gay marriage in America for no real reason other than the majority of people here are Christian. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 When I deconverted the first book I read about it was 'Farewell To God,' by Charles Templeton. He was at one time the other half of the Billy Graham Crusades before deconverting to agnosticism. I then read 'The God Delusion,' by Richard Dawkins. I listened to Hitchens lectures on the internet. One person who was instrumental in helping my deconversion, believe it or not, was Carl Sagan and studying astronomy and paleontology. Studies in astronomy helped me have a better understanding of evolution and the expanse of time. I believe in science's explanation for our beginnings because it does not depend on invisible magical super friends to achieve what it cannot explain but chooses to research and explore those avenues. Science is not afraid of change. Believe it or not I do not hate spirituality in people. I hate organized religion and the twits who preach their method of being close to a creator through pain and suffering is the only way to achieve happiness. I dislike those who use religion for a weapon or a platform for spreading hatred of humanity because some sheepherder decided many years ago to persecute those who did not believe as he did, in the name of his god of course. I have seen good church-goers who have a loving caring attitude towards others irregardless of the other's religious beliefs and I know some real ass holes. Same goes for atheists, some care about others and some could care less. I believe Dawkins to be a person who actually cares about others or he would not argue his beliefs as an atheist. When Dawkins argues against religion he does so from the point of view that church doctrine drives personal ambition, IMOP. And he is correct. The violent onslaught of religion is the backbone of religion--believe or die. Churches that are all warm and fuzzy do not follow the True Doctrine of the church--some people do not understand this point and it's hard to explain. For instance Westboro Baptist Church, as weird as they are, truly express the church's true doctrine of hatred towards humanity. Jesus is just a figure head they can point to and claim Jesus loves you but the church will persecute you until you accept it's doctrine and mindlessness. The concept of peace through religion is that there is only peace after everyone accepts the church's doctrine and is submissive to it. Otherwise it is acceptable to kill those, members or not, who do not believe and accept that doctrine. Once I realized this, I left the church completely. Dawkins points this out in many of his lectures and debates I have listened to. Atheists and Christians claim Dawkins is hateful because he does not back down or meet someone half way--he knows the church's true doctrine and exposes it for the hatefulness and unreasonableness it justly deserves. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tealeaf Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Nice to see that you've connected to the real person behind what Dawkins portrays blackpuddin.... I had not heard of any of the atheist authors either until my first peak in tangles with religious people. The God Delusion had just happened to have been released right around that time so I picked it up. To this day I have still only read to page 224 paperback. Not because I didn't like it, but because it was too much like masturbation! I was either aware of or had already come on my own to agree with what he was saying so it wasn't all that mind blowing. Just a new way to put my own thoughts.... I'd say one of the weaker arguments he deploys is the "slippery slope" one. It's not that it's implausible, or even untrue. It just doesn't reflect on moderates very well; many people are very wishy washy. However in principle I still side will it. Just look at mob/riot mentality. He mainly addresses fundementalist behaviour, and most people aren't fundies. Shit tons are, but most aren't. The thing is that moderates legitimise the fundies by trying to prop up religion as still a good or necessary thing. If you take religious seriously and literally it is dangerous. If you don't, you are just making up shit as you please. There's no noble road to be travelled. JadedAtheist, I agree to an extent but I still side with that argument regarding location and religious belief. It is just too true. You are labelled with what you were raised nearest to. It may not reflect truth value, but the fact that BILLIONS here and, MILLIONS there think they have The Truth is very telling. The thing I most like about Dawkins is that he has an entire career prior to any of this atheist stuff as a well respected biologist. He knows his shit. It seems to me he just got so fed up with all the bullshit out there that was being said about his field that he had to write. I laugh at the pathetic attempts to discredit him based on his knowledge of theology. What knowledge? The man has read the bible. That's all that should have to be done. And it's leaps and bounds over what most professing Christians have done. So because he hasn't spent (read: wasted) time reading all the bullshit people have cooked up regarding theism over the centuries that is based on....feelings, sentiments, and others' bullshit....he can't comment on what the "holy" text itself says? Please. People will go to any end to try and discredit someone who is plainly telling it how it is. If he comes off rude sometimes, I don't blame him. A few centuries ago, the Catholic church would be stoking the coals under his feet. That's pretty rude I think.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 JadedAtheist, I agree to an extent but I still side with that argument regarding location and religious belief. It is just too true. You are labelled with what you were raised nearest to. It may not reflect truth value, but the fact that BILLIONS here and, MILLIONS there think they have The Truth is very telling. The thing I most like about Dawkins is that he has an entire career prior to any of this atheist stuff as a well respected biologist. He knows his shit. It seems to me he just got so fed up with all the bullshit out there that was being said about his field that he had to write. I laugh at the pathetic attempts to discredit him based on his knowledge of theology. What knowledge? The man has read the bible. That's all that should have to be done. And it's leaps and bounds over what most professing Christians have done. So because he hasn't spent (read: wasted) time reading all the bullshit people have cooked up regarding theism over the centuries that is based on....feelings, sentiments, and others' bullshit....he can't comment on what the "holy" text itself says? Please. People will go to any end to try and discredit someone who is plainly telling it how it is. I believe people should question their beliefs, I agree with Vigile that a thinker should pause at the realization that they've defaulted to certain beliefs because of where and when they grew up. Yet, this still isn't a good argument against any particular religion because the fact is most people will just reply with "So?". As for knowledge of theology, I am amazed anyone would think this shouldn't be a requirement. If you get into a debate, the assumed prerequisites of the debate are that you have knowledge concerning the subject, and you are familiar with your proponents arguments. You would read their books, papers and various other works to get an idea of how they think and argue in order to better prepare yourself for the debate. You don't just get up there and wing it. Who's Dawkins' target audience? Those who already agree with him or those who are on the other side? If you you're speaking from ignorance I'm not going to pay attention to anything you say, or take you seriously. It would be like me getting up there and debating biology with him and saying that I shouldn't require an in depth knowledge of biology in order to try to refute some hypothesis or theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzy Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 What do you mean when you say he doesn't know what he's talking about? His arguments show ignorance about the religions he's attacking; that, and some of his arguments against religion that are meant to be death blows really aren't good arguments against faith (In my most humble opinion). An example that I can think of off the top of my head is when he argues that the only reason you are religion X is because you are born in Y. If you were born in Z you'd be A. Just because I would statistically be another faith in another location or time doesn't change the fact that religion X could actually be "the faith". I think for most people it's true that they are only in religion X because they were born in that culture. Not for everybody, but for most. In the interview with Father George Coyne I linked in in the first page of this thread Dawkins asks him too why he thinks his religion is the right one and not, say, Islam. And Coyne too admits: because he was born in Christian culture and in a strictly Catholic family. He admits had he been born in a Muslim country he would probably be a Muslim. I don't think the point Dawkins wants to make with it is that it necesseraly means your religion is false. He just wants to point out how absurd it is that most people automatically assume that because they were born in a certain religion or in a certain religious culture then that is the right religion. As a Christian it was so easy to me to see the absurdities and evilness of Islam and the Muslim God, yet I couldn't see the same in Christianity and YHWH. Why? Because I was growing up inside of the latter culture and outside of the first. So it was easier for me to see Islam objectively than Cristianity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 To this day I have still only read to page 224 paperback. Not because I didn't like it, but because it was too much like masturbation! I was either aware of or had already come on my own to agree with what he was saying so it wasn't all that mind blowing. Just a new way to put my own thoughts.... That sums up my own reason for not reading any of the new atheists. I deconverted well before they started coming out with these books and I was already fairly familiar with their reasoning. The only book I've read related to my deconversion was Why I'm not a Christian, by Bertrand Russell. I wasn't all that impressed by it and thought he could have made a stronger case. Ironically, the book that really spurred my deconversion was a christian book called The Wisdom Hunter. I had already started to question things and the writer of this book really challenged me to examine my faith. His intention was toward a deeper, less religious faith, but only the less religious direction worked its way on me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Regarding the point about adopting the faith you were born with. I think it could be made stronger simply by pointing out a few absurdities, such as zombie king, walking on water, living in a fish, etc... and then arguing that only widespread cultural acceptance allows people to believe such things without evidence without being embarrassed by the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xtech Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Richard Dawkins is an excellent writer and lecturer, on biology. His book 'The Selfish Gene' influenced the field immensely. He is completely right for being outraged against the counter-scientific claims made by people totally unfamiliar with the sciences, and we are lucky to have outspoken, articulate, knowledgeable people like him. He does not get good grades on psychology, though. Yes, he is correct that people need to have it pointed out to them that the religion they adopt is the one they are born into. However, I wish he would be a little more pro-human, and exert some effort into investigating what else there could possibly be about religion that not only attracts people, but holds them in its thrall, and that frankly could be positive and beneficial for individuals and for societies. Yes, we unbelievers need to attack the mendacity of religion and the ridiculous truth claims of religion's creation-myths. We do need to point out the reputation-building hype of followers of certain charismatic religious figures as what it is. We need to call out the fact that organized super-religions are political structures that control people by manipulating the very human needs we have for community and mission and for structure and instruction. But without attacking the people who were born into this, who were raised on religion's myths. Not everyone has had the benefit of a wonderful Oxford education, and many people are surrounded by fellow-believers, just like he is surrounded by scientists and non-believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Jaded A, (not using quote as it is still messed up) Although these high profile atheists may be relevant in the US, they are not really on the radar screen here in SA. There is really nothing to push back against as the woos do not influence govt. If he needs a seminary level knowledge of theology to refute xianity, I don't think that is necessary. He is pretty intelligent and there are oodles of sources he can refer to and a cursory read through the babble is all that is needed to show how stupid it is. Of course I have a science bias. Disproving the concepts of A&E, the flood, lack of evidence for Exodus etc. does not require in depth knowledge IMO, just being a rational, logical thinker is enough to take on most apologists These three milestones of the OT are cornerstones in the fundie doctrines and nailing them is akin to shakin' them up a bit. Even though the RCC has bowed to theistic evolution (which is a BS compromise) it is at least a departure from literalism and most RC's are harmless by comparison. That said, the RC's I have dialogued with from the US are very much like our fundies here so the RC folk here are pretty much a do your own thing crowd and for all intents and purposes not too pushy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 Jaded A, (not using quote as it is still messed up) Although these high profile atheists may be relevant in the US, they are not really on the radar screen here in SA. There is really nothing to push back against as the woos do not influence govt. If he needs a seminary level knowledge of theology to refute xianity, I don't think that is necessary. He is pretty intelligent and there are oodles of sources he can refer to and a cursory read through the babble is all that is needed to show how stupid it is. Of course I have a science bias. Disproving the concepts of A&E, the flood, lack of evidence for Exodus etc. does not require in depth knowledge IMO, just being a rational, logical thinker is enough to take on most apologists These three milestones of the OT are cornerstones in the fundie doctrines and nailing them is akin to shakin' them up a bit. Even though the RCC has bowed to theistic evolution (which is a BS compromise) it is at least a departure from literalism and most RC's are harmless by comparison. That said, the RC's I have dialogued with from the US are very much like our fundies here so the RC folk here are pretty much a do your own thing crowd and for all intents and purposes not too pushy. You know, as an Australian, it is hard to comprehend the level of religiosity that Americans have to live with. However, the main danger in Australia is the rise of the megachurches, and Hillsong has gotten into having politicians visit during campaigns. That being said, though, Australia is a rather secular society. There's an attitude of 'if you want to believe that, that's your business'. It is against the law to discriminate on religious or non-religious grounds, and proselytising in the workplace could be easy grounds for harrassment. From my viewpoint, living in a society that promotes tolerance means that our politicians are careful not to offend, so we don't tend to get these stupid proclaimations of faith so much from politicians like the US does. Voting is not a choice here, and I actually think that that is a good method of keeping politicians from being too obviously motivated by religious thought. Of course, everything has its disadvantages, but religion does not trump all. Muslims can jump up and down all they want about a male police officer pulling over a female wearing a full-face covering and requesting that she remove it for ID purposes, but the law is still on the officer's side. They still won't tolerate full-face coverings in places like banks. I'm very proud of the pragmatic way with which examples like that will be viewed by the law and our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asanerman Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 To this day I have still only read to page 224 paperback. Not because I didn't like it, but because it was too much like masturbation! I was either aware of or had already come on my own to agree with what he was saying so it wasn't all that mind blowing. Just a new way to put my own thoughts.... That sums up my own reason for not reading any of the new atheists. I deconverted well before they started coming out with these books and I was already fairly familiar with their reasoning. The only book I've read related to my deconversion was Why I'm not a Christian, by Bertrand Russell. I wasn't all that impressed by it and thought he could have made a stronger case. Ironically, the book that really spurred my deconversion was a christian book called The Wisdom Hunter. I had already started to question things and the writer of this book really challenged me to examine my faith. His intention was toward a deeper, less religious faith, but only the less religious direction worked its way on me. Much the same for me, Vigile. Considering that Russell's book was published in 1927 surely he was the "Dawkins" of his day, analytical philosopher style. Why I'm Not a Christian had been published 43 years when I read it at the tender age of 21. It was the first "chink" in my mythic armor. Where I fell prey to the religious myth was that it offered a way to live the unavoidable experiences of: pleasure and pain, gain and loss, praise and blame, fame and disrepute, without finding myself "sighing and frightened, or full of argument." Perhaps finding something particular, and real in life. A noble, honest and courageous pursuit? Needless to say that popular "conveyor belt" for the "Kingdom Come" lost that aspect of it's running gear way before Nietzsche's God is dead theology. In the 80's I read George H. Smith's "Atheism The Case Against God." I've since read Dennett and Dawkins. I've dabbled with a number of "pop" writers (the wagon train of those who want you to buy their stories). They vary only in degree and not in kind. Recently I've decided that religion is the label a lot of us put on the pursuit of life, liberty, happiness, etc. In other words, learning to live in ones own skin. More than a few folks see the human desire for religion, regardless of the culture, as "evidence" of a pull to a Higher Power. When that "belief in belief" (Dennett) dances in the light of "mustering up" all sorts of absolutes hit the proverbial fan! Sad thing is when the rug is pulled from under a devoted and less than informed believer,for what ever the reason, there is not a lot out there, other that rant, angst and raving, that can soften the blow or the landing. There are a lot of "how I hit bottom" hard but little of how and where to start again. As some have said "It's a free for all" lacking structure (another religion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 I'm up to page 169 now, and thoroughly enjoying myself. I'm finding The God Delusion to be very well referenced, and I love the way Dawkins very patiently presents his case on each topic. I am learning a lot, too- like there being 10 planets in our solar system now (I had no idea), and I never knew what Pascal's Wager meant before. When he explained it, I remembered as a child thinking something very much along those lines, though a rather more simplified version. I remember thinking that if I didn't do what god wanted, or believe in him, then I would go to hell. But how did I know god was real? I worried about getting in trouble for wondering whether god was real. I was taught that it was a sin to question god's existence. I was raised with a lot of animosity towards Catholics (due to my Huguenot ancestry), and it was drilled into me as far back as I can remember all the reasons that they were wrong, how they worshipped idols with all their saints and the virgin mary and what-not. But I also heard various other adults talk about there being Catholics who were actually saved christians. I don't think the adults around me ever realised that I was listening to what they were saying and thinking about it. But I was, and it made me wonder how I could really know if I was right and they were wrong. Were they right, and was I wrong? Why did they pray to the virgin mary and we didn't? Of course, I was never game to actually ask these questions, so I didn't. They were pushed aside. But the question of who was right and who was wrong never actually left me. Even in my most extreme days, every once in a while the question would crop up again, and I would push it aside again. And because I was never really sure at my core about how I could know for a fact that I was right, I would listen to other points of view a lot more than I would ever let on. I was doomed as a christian lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norton65ca Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I read "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins. Those are good books if you don't know a lot about evolution. They helped me in my deconversion process, although I think by the time I read them I was already convinced evolution was a fact. I am less pleased by Dawkins' speeches I have seen about religion. He seems to be attacking a very specific form of Christianity - I mean, it only goes so far. Hitchens was a smart guy, but I have some problems with him. I think I read one of his books on God - "God is Not Good"? maybe, and it was very shallow and not so well done. Yes, but Dawkins' point is that moderate christians don't stand up enough to the fundamental extremists, and as such enable them. And he's got a point there, I think. Not only that, but even moderate christianity can be very damaging to a person. However, he does cede to British Anglicanism, but his concern is that that the Anglicans themselves are beginning to become increasingly influenced by extremism. The moderates don't stand up to the fundamentalists because at their core (and the fundies understand and constantly reference this in their attacks on the "liberal churches") they don't have any firm foundation to stand on to be honest. Once the infallibility of scripture, the atonement, the exclusivity of the faith, and resurrection all come into debate, the foundations are gone and the liberal churches don't have much to offer in substance as compared to the ironclad dogma of the fundamentalist outfits. This is the reason for growth in fundie churches and loss of memberships in old mainline liberal denominations. The fundie message is so absolute, so firm, so black and white it has a certain appeal for those who prefer to think in this way. Liberal Christianity surely is a watered down version of the thing itself, Christianity-lite if you will. As far as my own personal experience goes, I stopped briefly during deconversion at universalism, and was able to remove hell without drastic surgery, but when the validity of the essential gospel accounts was shown to be dubious, the rest fell apart very swiftly indeed. I think one has to "think away" a helluva lot of the biblical material if you wish to maintain a "liberal Christian" view, to the point where to my view at any rate there's not a lot left at all. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 The moderates don't stand up to the fundamentalists because at their core (and the fundies understand and constantly reference this in their attacks on the "liberal churches") they don't have any firm foundation to stand on to be honest. Once the infallibility of scripture, the atonement, the exclusivity of the faith, and resurrection all come into debate, the foundations are gone and the liberal churches don't have much to offer in substance as compared to the ironclad dogma of the fundamentalist outfits. This is the reason for growth in fundie churches and loss of memberships in old mainline liberal denominations. The fundie message is so absolute, so firm, so black and white it has a certain appeal for those who prefer to think in this way. Liberal Christianity surely is a watered down version of the thing itself, Christianity-lite if you will. As far as my own personal experience goes, I stopped briefly during deconversion at universalism, and was able to remove hell without drastic surgery, but when the validity of the essential gospel accounts was shown to be dubious, the rest fell apart very swiftly indeed. I think one has to "think away" a helluva lot of the biblical material if you wish to maintain a "liberal Christian" view, to the point where to my view at any rate there's not a lot left at all. It's interesting that you say this, because I was having a chat with my MIL recently, and she felt my generation were going "backwards". She said that as a child of the sixties, she found my generation to be rather prudish, and I told her that I was concerned that while men seemed to have gotten the feminist message, it's the women my age and younger who don't seem to be getting it and are actually limiting themselves. I find it very concerning when my 21 year old friend tells me that if she wasn;t able to have kids, that her partner would leave her, and further, that she felt that was a valid reason to end a relationship. I was just horrified. Her value and worth does not rest on her ability to incubate, and as yet, I have been unsuccessful in getting her out of that thinking. And I think this "going backwards" that my MIL noted is one of the reasons that christianity is getting increasingly fundamentalist. I don't know why it's happening, but it concerns me. As an aside, I was rather surprised by my MIL's feminist leanings. It made me realise that it is what she likes about me. i rarely cook, I despise cleaning so it often doesn't get done, and I think she likes that, because I'm bucking a trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tealeaf Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I believe people should question their beliefs, I agree with Vigile that a thinker should pause at the realization that they've defaulted to certain beliefs because of where and when they grew up. Yet, this still isn't a good argument against any particular religion because the fact is most people will just reply with "So?". As for knowledge of theology, I am amazed anyone would think this shouldn't be a requirement. If you get into a debate, the assumed prerequisites of the debate are that you have knowledge concerning the subject, and you are familiar with your proponents arguments. You would read their books, papers and various other works to get an idea of how they think and argue in order to better prepare yourself for the debate. You don't just get up there and wing it. Who's Dawkins' target audience? Those who already agree with him or those who are on the other side? If you you're speaking from ignorance I'm not going to pay attention to anything you say, or take you seriously. It would be like me getting up there and debating biology with him and saying that I shouldn't require an in depth knowledge of biology in order to try to refute some hypothesis or theory. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the location thing. I don't think his point is to say that's why the religion is false. It's just to point out how happenstance the adoption of a religious belief usually is. It's not the truth value that get's it into the mind. It's location and popularity; which also goes on to legitimise it after installation. The fact that your most die hard Christian could employ the exact same mental faculties to be a die hard Muslim - had they been born in the Middle East - is a huge point. I'm sure he hasn't completely neglected reading up on theology. I'm also confident when embarking on it he thought like I would. Why waste a huge amount of time reading what people think about stuff we can't prove? He knows the typical apologetic approach. I could see if he never read the bible.... But he clearly has. Which is a point in itself. Shouldn't the bible be all that's required to instruct the Christian? All this theology stuff is just fluffy bullshit. Which brings us to comparing biology to theology. Biology is the study of what is actually here and how it works. One should be expected to read up on it because there is objective knowledge to be had; and much of it. There's not much room for make-believe the natural sciences. Things will be weighted against evidence. Views will be proposed and challenged. Things will be learned, built upon, and change over time. Theology is the study and propetuation of bullshit. It concerns invisible things which anyone can say anything about. It's just whacking off to the faith already decided upon. There's nothing concrete about the approach. So to study up on it is to what? Learn what people who already believed in things want to say about the magical/invisible things they personally feel like saying? I think the whole 'you don't know what you're talking about' charge is just another desperate attempt to discredit him. Because "knowing" more about it is what.... Knowing all the kinds of bullshit people have made up over time? I think he has a pretty good handle on that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Haven't read any of the athiest writers. Nothing new there really I'm sure all of us haven't contemplated ourselves at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I am learning a lot, too- like there being 10 planets in our solar system now (I had no idea), Actually, that information is old. We have only 8 planets now. Pluto was downgraded to dwarf planet not long ago. The reason is that we will most likely find many more "planets" in the different asteroid belts. There are something like 5 dwarf planets at the moment, and Pluto is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 I believe people should question their beliefs, I agree with Vigile that a thinker should pause at the realization that they've defaulted to certain beliefs because of where and when they grew up. Yet, this still isn't a good argument against any particular religion because the fact is most people will just reply with "So?". As for knowledge of theology, I am amazed anyone would think this shouldn't be a requirement. If you get into a debate, the assumed prerequisites of the debate are that you have knowledge concerning the subject, and you are familiar with your proponents arguments. You would read their books, papers and various other works to get an idea of how they think and argue in order to better prepare yourself for the debate. You don't just get up there and wing it. Who's Dawkins' target audience? Those who already agree with him or those who are on the other side? If you you're speaking from ignorance I'm not going to pay attention to anything you say, or take you seriously. It would be like me getting up there and debating biology with him and saying that I shouldn't require an in depth knowledge of biology in order to try to refute some hypothesis or theory. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the location thing. I don't think his point is to say that's why the religion is false. It's just to point out how happenstance the adoption of a religious belief usually is. It's not the truth value that get's it into the mind. It's location and popularity; which also goes on to legitimise it after installation. The fact that your most die hard Christian could employ the exact same mental faculties to be a die hard Muslim - had they been born in the Middle East - is a huge point. I'm sure he hasn't completely neglected reading up on theology. I'm also confident when embarking on it he thought like I would. Why waste a huge amount of time reading what people think about stuff we can't prove? He knows the typical apologetic approach. I could see if he never read the bible.... But he clearly has. Which is a point in itself. Shouldn't the bible be all that's required to instruct the Christian? All this theology stuff is just fluffy bullshit. Which brings us to comparing biology to theology. Biology is the study of what is actually here and how it works. One should be expected to read up on it because there is objective knowledge to be had; and much of it. There's not much room for make-believe the natural sciences. Things will be weighted against evidence. Views will be proposed and challenged. Things will be learned, built upon, and change over time. Theology is the study and propetuation of bullshit. It concerns invisible things which anyone can say anything about. It's just whacking off to the faith already decided upon. There's nothing concrete about the approach. So to study up on it is to what? Learn what people who already believed in things want to say about the magical/invisible things they personally feel like saying? I think the whole 'you don't know what you're talking about' charge is just another desperate attempt to discredit him. Because "knowing" more about it is what.... Knowing all the kinds of bullshit people have made up over time? I think he has a pretty good handle on that already. Just wanted to say here that I'm pretty sure now that he's read plenty of theology- what I've read so far of the God delusion is referenced pretty extensively, and includes references to theologians, along with apologists, particularly as the apologists arguments for ID are the ones he hears all the time. He's even got 6 copies of a Watch Tower publication Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts