Anti-religious rhetoric is counterproductive
Compared to criticizing the specific principles that identify particular religious sects, condemning religion or religions as a whole is a cop out. A barrier to fruitful dialog.
amen
Side Score: 19
|
 |
blasphemy
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
I always found this to be the case. I attack specific things about certain religions (mainly Islam, Christianity and Judaism, but sometimes others as well) but I never get into the whole "Religion causes death and we're better off without it" mainly because it just seems like a bitch ass thing to say. Something that an Anarchist teen who listens to emo music would say. Religion is merely an ideology, and all ideologies do bad things. It's not really fair to say "we're better off without religion" and to create these ridiculous arguments about how religion does a bunch of bad shit is just pointless. It's like an Atheist club where everyone gets together to make fun of the other kids. If anything, it's the fat, ugly Goth kids who huddle in that empty part of the court yard and just judge everyone who isn't a fat, ugly Goth. Side: amen
Yep, that's true. The thing is, most of the time theists and atheist never look at things on the other side of the fence. The intelligent few however are able to debate/argue properly and understand each other's concepts, yet most of the time it's about imposing one's will onto the other's and who's right and who's wrong etc. Side: amen
I agree with what you say, but I gotta take exception with the last part. Is it not the point of debate to find out who is right and who is wrong? Is it not the point of education, understanding and learning to separate fact from fiction? Is not the whole reason you write to persuade others of your views, which you think are right? If debate is going to be productive we need to abandon this silly notion that there is no right or wrong. It's like ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room. We talk as if it didn't exist but in practice we aknowledge it all the time. There is a way the world actually is and a way it is not, that is inescapable and undeniable (well, you could deny it but you would be beyond reason to deny it). Every man thinks he is right, until his neighbor examines him. Side: amen
Yes, the whole point of a debate is to find out who is right and who is wrong... but who on this forum as admitted they're wrong and when is there actually a winner of a debate. The flaw in this website is that every post counts as a point towards the argument no matter how wrong or right it may be. Most the time, people will be supporting others on their side no matter how crappy their arguments may be. If you want a REAL debate with a CLEAR winner/loser then you need somebody neutral to say who presented the best debate. Side: amen
Religion is not what is holding us back. Why waste time trying to shoot it down? Those of us who embrace a scientific worldview often fall prey to the same logical fallacies that devoutly religious persons do. One example of the popular appeal to authority: "Famous and Intelligent people have said X, thus X is more likely to be true". I often see atheists trumpeting quotations from famous scientists and thinkers which support their view. This is the same argument used by theists when they assert that since their priest or pope said X, then X is more likely true because that pope or priest has some supposed authority on the subject of divinity. My point is that you and I believe scientists because we trust their authority. We trust their method, so we believe that a water molecule is composed of a specific composition of atoms even though we personally have no empirical evidence that this is true. Unless you have personally examined a water molecule (which some of you may have done), you probably learned about its structure from a teacher or a book. Thus you have no more justification for your belief than does the devoutly religious person in his or her belief in the resurrection of Christ. He or she trusts the methodology of their religion, and so is willing to take the words of the clergy at face value without a careful examination of the facts. You may well counter that the methodology of science is obviously superior to that of religion, because it is based on rigorous observation rather than metaphysical speculation. I would challenge you to ask yourself WHY you believe that empiricism is superior? Why do you believe that the universe is composed only of physical objects interacting in a strictly causal fashion to produce events. If you are honest like I was when I asked myself this question, I think you will probably have to admit that it is because lots of other people around you also have faith in empiricism and materialism (the belief that the world is composed only of observable physical objects). So what is it that makes you ANY different from the religious person? Side: amen
I've never seen a prominent atheist use the argument from authority. Sure, everyone uses quotes but you have to notice subtle distinctions. Generally speaking an atheist might quote someone and mention the authors name out of respect, and so as not to cause confusion and take credit for something he did not do or say. A theist almost invariably precedes or follows the quote with "the greatest", "the most famous" so and so which is a clear indication that the qualities of the person he's quoting are important for his argument. That's why you almost always hear bullshit like Stalin was an atheist, and almost never that priests are pedophiles. Both are irrelevant for the argument, but theists are not above demagoguery. Obviously... Side: blasphemy
"I've never seen a prominent atheist use the argument from authority." Neither have I. I'm not talking about prominent atheists. I'm talking about the average, everyday atheist. The point is that while we put trust in our scientists (I am not excluding myself from this, I am also an atheist), we are ourselves not scientists, and are basing our worldview largely on that trust, which is no different (epistemologically speaking) from the faith of the believer. The arguments from authority come from lists of quotes like the one I am linking to here. Side: amen
I concur, which is rare for me. In my experience the term "religion" is to often used to pigeon hole some one else and dismiss their views as "biased and just an opinion" simply because they are "religious". As if religious people can make no true statements. I think the debate would be much more productive if we categorized our beliefs as worldviews, since that is what they really are; the way we see the world and they way we interpret the facts of this world. For example; every one of us has a theology(even if it is by way of negation) cosmology and an anthropology. Then we could then begin to be more specific in our discussions instead of always speaking in generalizations that are over-simplistic. So by doing this you can see how someone builds their worldview. Because your theology is going to inform your view of cosmology and anthropology and we can better see the structure and it's integrity or lack thereof. Otherwise your just on the outside saying; man that thing is ugly! Side: amen
Blasphemy I say! Everyone knows that hating other groups of people has always gone with great results in the past. Always. Anyone who says otherwise will be subject to my secret police force and I will manipulate the media to turn them into a demon. This is true. (You see, I actually have a total rule over the media behind the scenes, for I am a very powerful man in a very powerful place.) Side: amen
1
point
|
I'm pretty sure that people would find another way to blindly give power, wealth and control to other humans, and avail themselves to be used in all sorts of counterproductive, backward, uncivilized and deadly agendas if religions were to cease to exist. But I am also pretty sure that the next model for non-thinking will wield much less power and be less of a hindrance to the advancement of society. So no. It's not counterproductive. We need to get this one out of the way so as to have a chance of some kind of a pleasant society before the sun goes cold. Side: blasphemy
Dallowar, Let me see if I understand you correctly. This is what I think you are saying; Religion is an invention of man and like man it's evolving. If we could speed up the process of religious evolution and it's eventual elimination we could achieve a pleasant society. Therefore, Anti-religious rhetoric is productive in that it works towards this end, a pleasant society. I get this by the use of the phrases; find another way, if religions were to cease to exist, the next model, get this one out of the way and have a chance of some kind of a pleasant society. These phrases show a progression from one form of religion to another form of religion and finally ending at a desired end; a pleasant society, without religion Just for clarification when I use the word evolution I mean by it; change over time. And that's what I mean when I use it in this response. If this is correct, could you help me understand your view better by answering some questions I have of it.
1.) If there is no life after death why would you work for a goal you will never see; why not just eat, drink and be merry? I mean what difference does it ultimately make whether I do this or don't do that when the sun goes cold? I can't see one looking at the universe the way you do. If your view is correct it would then seem to me that Man is a useless passion, to quote Jean-Paul Sartre. 2.) Why do you assume that the evolutionary process of man and religion will yield better and better results; Why do you think it's an upward climb and not a downward spiral? 3.) Does the evolutionary process have a teleology; if so, how did it get it? 4.) Why do you think the teleology of religious evolution is positive and not random and capricious? 5.) Why would our involvement in the process be good and not detrimental? 6.) Why do you think the teleology of mankind is to achieve a pleasant society before the sun goes cold; and not something else? 7.) Why should I accept your view of the world and not mine or that of someone else? 8.) How do I know your view is for the advancement of society and not for it's detriment? 9.) How do you know that the end result of this evolution process is the same one that you desire? What if it was to kill man off before the sun goes cold. 10.) What makes your view of religion any different than say Stalin or the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot: The only one I can see is that they acted upon their belief and you haven't (as far as I know) 11.) What if these guys were really helping out the evolutionary process by killing people off and you, by working for a pleasant society, are hindering the process? And finally, history is strewn with corpses from the pursuit of utopian visions, why would your utopian vision be any different ? Now I'm not claiming you hold any of these views. I'm just trying to see the world the way you claim to see it. These are just question that pop into my head as I think about the implications of your worldview. So I'm just hoping that you could clear some of these things up for me since your worldview seems to give more questions than it does answers. Side: amen
First, sorry it took so long to reply, I’ve been busy. I don’t exactly mean for religion to be evolving (as it indeed does, look at the newer ones like scientology), but you got it almost right. The most basic argument would be that human society evolves and religion is but one parameter you can use to gauge its progress. As it happens we are stuck with some Iron Age myth (abrahamic religions) that’s holding us back. I will none the less answer questions that do not come from the aforementioned misunderstanding: 1) It seems you’re confusing the afterlife of a person, with the real, future lives of fellow human beings. In any case, how does belief in an afterlife make you not squander the one (and indeed only one) you have now? I would’ve presumed it’s just the opposite. 2) It correlates nicely. The more we know about the world, the more our lives are pleasant, and the more religions turn out to be false. Search for ‘god of the gaps’. 3) It can have because we’re talking about the society, and it would get it from humans. If it was a natural process and humans were 100% honest with themselves it would be easier. Believers would be extinct – dying in a church, clutching a prayer book, of a burst appendix, pneumonia, rotten teeth or hunger because cars, cell phones and other products of science give non believers an enormous advantage. Actually, this hypothetical is wrong as it implies that secular humanists would let this happen and nothing can be further from the truth. 4) comes from the misunderstanding 5) It is our involvement that got rid of slavery for example. Even though abrahamic religions condone it. 6) Because there’s nothing else. It’s a scientific fact. 7) Based on arguments. It certainly should not be based on dogma. 8) see 7 9) There’s something to be said for a suggestion that we’d be better off dead then living in a society where fathers are expected to murder their sons on the whim of a god, slavery is rampant, there’s no gender equality etc. But again, see 7. 10) Totalitarian communism, fascism and nazism are exactly alike religions in every respect except their "deities" are human. Them being atheistic with respect to other religions is an expected consequence, not a precursor. 11) There’s no killing in any sane persons view of the evolution of society. 12) That is exactly why evolution is a nice word for it. Utopian society never seems to work if it’s thrust upon mankind. But if it comes gradually, based on the strength of arguments I fully expect it to be functional. My world view gives all answers that are possible to give by anyone about any practical subject. Read it again, I mean every word of it! I personally may lack the knowledge and skill to answer, and I’m sure that someone sharing my general view would not agree with some answers I gave to you above. But the point is to get our knowledge from science and our morals from each other, and all to the very best of our current ability. No amount of threats with hell fire can convince me that the value for Pi is exactly three, and that owning slaves is moral. We are the only “supernatural” beings on this planet. We are so because we posses logic, reason, morals, empathy and other qualities we evolved but allow us to transcend the very nature in which we evolved. We know that it is natural for a sick animal, body or mind, to die. But we won’t let our fellow human die. We won’t succumb to eugenics either. Some research might show (as it indeed does) that there are differences in intelligence between ethnic groups or genders. A model might suggest that the planet is overpopulated and that a cull of humans would be in order. Science only gives us the raw data, the knowledge. It is up to us to make use of it and boy are we in luck that there’s not one shred of evidence to compel us to obey a deity that demands we commit genocide. We put the individual first, and everything else falls in to place more or less easily. Side: blasphemy
No evidence. It's a thought process. Religions, like any other model of non-thinking, get their power from fear, lack of knowledge, poverty, sickness... All those factors are now much less prominent than at the time of conception of largest religions. One would hope, and even dare to predict that this trend is going to continue with or without minor setbacks. It's then a matter of common reasoning to say that if and when we get rid of religion the next model will be less powerful. One could of course dispute my basic premise about the source of power of any model of non-thinking. I would then advise them to take a look at statistical and empirical findings. The strong correlation between those factors and historic models of non-thinking like religion or totalitarian (or what theist like to wrongly identify as 'atheistic') communism is not what I would call evidence, but it sure is enough for me to make some kind of hypothesis. As i did. Side: blasphemy
I was just wondering what would be the fruit of that dialog you mention? I can only guess that since you want to focus on specifics your goal is to declare the winning religion in the end? Or are religions to be cleansed of what's wrong with them? You can guess that I don't find any of those objectives as valid, possible or meaningful. Care to offer another one? Side: blasphemy
I was just wondering what would be the fruit of that dialog you mention? Improved understanding and respect of other peoples perspectives. I can only guess that since you want to focus on specifics your goal is to declare the winning religion in the end? Or are religions to be cleansed of what's wrong with them? To the former:No I am not arguing to promote a particular religious sect. To the latter: That would be nice. You can guess that I don't find any of those objectives as valid, possible or meaningful. Care to offer another one? I would have never guessed that you thought the objective of improving our belief system(s) was invalid(?), impossible or meaningless. I challenge you to explain why they should remain so terribly flawed. Side: amen
I put it to you that if you ever managed to do that there would be nothing left. You can put up all the straw men you want and challenge me to go after them, but I did not say they should remain terribly flawed. I said they should not remain. Period. Being incompatible with logic and reason is one thing they all share and that's why cleansing them would be an exercise in futility. P.s. Why would you even want to understand and respect perspectives? 'Perspective' is a weasel word that exists only in a cultural vacuum. I say let's have a free market of culture and beliefs and we'll find out soon enough if a disease is best cured with prayer, some kind of herbal tea or with science rooted in logic and reason. I bet you’re the kind of person that likes to say “It’s not all black and white”… Side: blasphemy
|
