by Unlearn 267 Replies latest watchtower bible
This thread needs to get back on topic. It is not a theist v atheist thread. We have plenty of those.
This thread is to talk about the original freedom fighter, Satan. The fighter who said, no we won’t be kept in the dark. The dissident who would not let the jealous god of war "Yahweh" keep the masses down.
LOL---the Dawkins religion---that is so cute.
It IS cute, lol. I just probably think so for different reasons than you ;)
Peace,
tammy
When people define their entire world by those that believe in a god and those that don't---it is understandable that they will see religion everywhere. It is their starting point, and things outside that context are difficult to grasp.
Dawkins religion (and I believe this is S&G's meaning) is a strawman religion. (not that he has religion,but that the religion that he argues against to make his points is a strawman religion) Then anyone who does not fit into his strawman religion doesn't count, and neither does anything they have to say about faith, cause they're just making shit up as they go along. Or as S&G said... they're not following the rules.
Peace,
tammy
Here is the fundamental misunderstanding. You think that because you don't fall into the usual pattern of beleivers, you don't fit into the narrative of Dawkins. Dawkins's argument is not that CERTAIN religions, or CERTAIN beliefs are counterproductive, but ALL of them are. It is tempting to look at his comments and point out that you don't fit because he has not given your specific example. It doesn't matter if you follow the rules, it doesn't matter if you rewrite things, it doesn't matter if you create your own personal beliefs---the core message is that it is counterproductive.
Disagree with that concept if you wish, but stop redefining what he is saying. Stop pretending that he is not talking about you. He is. Whatever your belief system, if it is based on believing in an unprovable spiritual, he is talking about you.. He is not setting up strawmen to attack. He gives some examples, but could never possibly hope to cover every single shade of belief----they are so subjective and ever changing. It is BELIEF that he thinks is the problem.
He has also said that he has no problem with believers that don't bother anyone. He does not like believers that try to enforce their beliefs on others through public policy, education, and blowing people up. So TEC, he wouldn't have a personal problem with you specifically. But he will not see believing in a god as healthy, no matter how you wrap it.
Disagree with him. That's fine.
You think that because you don't fall into the usual pattern of beleivers, you don't fit into the narrative of Dawkins.
Actually, I think the fundamental problem is in this sentence right here.
It is BELIEF that he thinks is the problem.
He does, yes. But he uses the strawman to provide backing to his points. The people who follow him (meaning those who quote him as often as believers quote their prophets), then use the strawman as well, and dismiss or poke at anyone believing anything outside of that strawman.
Peace,
tammy
Okay tec. maybe you could ask him to specifically mention you, since only you believe exactly as you do. Then it won't be a 'strawman' anymore. And all the points he makes about religions negative influence is invalid because you exist. And it is up to him to seek out every believer and mention their shade, otherwise he is generalizing and making up strawmen.
Even though his basic argument is that belief in gods is not productive---which one COULD conclude covers anyone that believes in gods---but you know---he doesn't know YOUR god.
Well, generalizing usually does consist of emphasizing strawmen.
And I am hardly the only person who believes as I do. And there are at least as many if not more moderates or liberals who believe science and God are not in conflict at all, and so accept and embrace both... but these are often spoken against as being deluded or dishonest or whatever. Why? Is it because they aren't following the 'rules'?
Peace,
tammy
I don't care what rules you follow Tec. You are setting up a stawman argument. I have made this point before, and I will make it again.
I do distinguish between religious types. Fundies do the most damage and are frankly the most dangerous.
What makes a fundie? Well first they must believe in a god. Very first step. How can they believe in a god? They must accept something without proof. They must suspend rigorous critical thinking. They must change their standards of evidence in order to believe in a god. You have said as much. You have said that what you consider to be evidence may not hold up in court and certainly does not hold up in science. So the standards are lowered. Maybe you only do this when it comes to god belief---but you have done it. Now your personality and circumstances keep you from being a fundie right now.
But where does it stop? That is an individual thing. If you are able to lower your standards for evidence to believe in a god, others will lower them even more and believe that they should hate homosexuals. They become so confused when what they consider to be evidence is so loosely defined, they can even learn to dismiss actual evidence--evolution is made up by scientists. When evidence becomes so loose weave it affects many other areas. When people decide willy nilly what is evidence, and make it a completely subjective word, nothing really prevents the from getting lost in the murkey waters. They are not grounded. Lowering your critical thinking skills for anything is not healthy.
So now we have two separate arguments. 1. Some religion is dangerous and hurtful. 2. Belief in itself allows such religion to exist because it encourages people to rewrite reality. One does not exist without the other. And even if believers don't do hurtful things, they have lowered their standards for evidence.
Open the jar on belief without evidence, or with faulty evidence, and you let out the full spectrum. Because these people are being encouraged to lower their critical thinking skills like it's a good thing, and therefore, are losing a layer of protection against extremism. Tell a person it is okay to use flawed evidence to support a belief in a god, and then try to tell the same people that it is not okay to use flawed evidence to believe in a talking snake and six creation days. Why good for one half and not the other?
NC
I do distinguish between religious types.
I never said you didn't. But many do not. It is all 'us vs them'. So perhaps you cannot answer the question... why do some accuse or dismiss a believer who accepts both science and God, as dishonest or deluded or whatever? Or treat them as if they are some oddity when they truly are not? Or think that they don't fit the 'usual pattern' of believers. What IS the usual pattern of believers?
Because that is what prompted my point.
Many ideologies can be exploited, abused, and become harmful. But if there is a slew of people who don't fall under the 'causing harm category' then perhaps the problem is something else entirely. You think it is lack of critical thinking, and you apply that to anyone who has faith in God.
I think you are wrong to do that.
What makes a fundie? Well first they must believe in a god. Very first step. How can they believe in a god? They must accept something without proof. They must suspend rigorous critical thinking. They must change their standards of evidence in order to believe in a god. You have said as much. You have said that what you consider to be evidence may not hold up in court and certainly does not hold up in science. So the standards are lowered. Maybe you only do this when it comes to god belief---but you have done it. Now your personality and circumstances keep you from being a fundie right now.
This statement is misleading. I have not lowered my standards for evidence. I don't blindly anything anyone says - that cannot be verified in some tangible way - unless I have verified it for myself.
Faith is not the problem, NC.
Faith has been expoited, and abused... by people who ARE the problem. People of greed, hate, intolerance, ambition, power-mongering, whatever. You can be an atheist (or a theist) with all the critical thinking skills in the world... and still be the cause of hurt because of what is within you.
Peace,
tammy
