Religion and Hotdogs

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Religion and Hotdogs

Since I fucked up the quoting on Hamby's blog, and I prefer the board format better, I will try to move the conversation between hamby and I here.

 

 

 

Here is the link to the blog entry in question:

 

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/atrocity-religion-and-causality-again/

 

 

 

My response:

 

 

I wrote:

 

Glad you wrote a blog about me, because I wrote one about you on the same subject.

http://cptpineapple.blogspot.com/2009/08/atheist-double-standard.html

Oh and speaking of blogs, here’s one from an atheist

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/06/talking-about-atheism-part-ii-evils-of.html

I’ll go into more detail later, but some points that immediatly came to mind:

I don’t know if quote tags work here

Quote:

I believe Alison is missing the big picture. For one thing, she’s coming at this as if there wasn’t any evidence outside of peer reviewed studies that demonstrates the relationship. It’s difficult for me, having been raised by devout Christians, to understand why it’s difficult for her to see the relationship. Christianity (and Islam) teach people from childhood that there are things which are true despite any and all evidence they might see. In fact, they are often taught that if they succumb to the sin of doubt, they will be horrendously tortured for all of eternity. Science, logic, and critical thinking are tricks of a magical and inscrutable evil being whose sole purpose in life is to capture the immortal soul of those who are foolish enough to believe their own observations.

So anecdotes it is then? You’re interaction with religion showing that religion does this or that is the same as Ray Comfort’s anecdotes about atheists [Kirk Cameron was a former atheist ya know!]

Quote:

Taking any particular religion out of the equation for a moment, there’s no need to search far for the proof that this kind of upbringing is psychologically damaging. Any psychologist, given a dysfunctional adult who has been forcibly indoctrinated into bizarre, antisocial beliefs as a child, will quickly diagnose them with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or some other illness caused by mental abuse. If Alison wishes to take on the entire Psychology establishment and claim that childhood indoctrination into bizarre beliefs is not causally related to adult dysfunction, I wish her well.

Anything taken to the extreme can cause psychological damage. My argument is that religion in of itself doesn’t however if taken to the fundamentalist level, it can.

Quote:

ONLY peer reviewed sociological papers are proof of any sociological phenomenon.

Strawman. If I have to supply Peer reviewed studies, than why don’t you?

Is Peer review not part of the scientific process? YES it is absolutly crucial to it.

I do recall you on the RRS boards asking me to show said studies about my thoughts on the nature of the universe.

Quote:

Alison has very cleverly shifted the burden of proof

Who’s making the positive claim here? YOU ARE.

Quote:

I also wonder: Is it possible that the reason nobody has bothered to prove that ideological indoctrination causes intra-family atrocity is because there is no good reason to believe otherwise?

Good point, why think of how animals evolve, when it’s obvious that the bactiral flagelium was designed.

Quote:

Since we do not observe such atrocity in statistically significant portions of non-ideological cultures, why wouldn’t we assume that the ideology is the cause?

Read the atheist ethicist blog, I think he makes a wonderful point on this. That is that evil people merely attribute their evilness to an ideology.

 

 

 

 

His response:

 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

 

 

Quote:

So anecdotes it is then? You’re interaction with religion showing that religion does this or that is the same as Ray Comfort’s anecdotes about atheists [Kirk Cameron was a former atheist ya know!]

No. The personal anecdote was simply a lead-in to the argument, and a way of saying that I think your lack of personal experience with indoctrination has contributed to your inability to see the causal connection. I think if you read again, you will see that I have not used this anecdote anywhere else in the text, and never linked it with a “therefore” style of statement. Instead, I used it as an introduction to the actual argument, which follows.

 

 

 

Quote:

Anything taken to the extreme can cause psychological damage. My argument is that religion in of itself doesn’t however if taken to the fundamentalist level, it can.

 

This statement is so general as to be useless. Anything taken to the extreme? What does that mean? Can moderation, taken to the extreme, cause psychological damage? Can good critical thinking, taken to the extreme, cause psychological damage? Clearly, you’re just being hyperbolic to try to lessen the impact of my argument. No, some things are, in and of themselves, “extreme” in the sense that they alter the way humans think and change their perception of reality to such a degree that they act irrationally and dysfunctionally. Ideologically indoctrinated religion is one of these things, and your denial is just that. A denial.

 

 

Quote:

Strawman. If I have to supply Peer reviewed studies, than why don’t you?

Is Peer review not part of the scientific process? YES it is absolutly crucial to it.

I do recall you on the RRS boards asking me to show said studies about my thoughts on the nature of the universe

 

 

It is most certainly not a strawman. Do you wish to argue that only that which has been peer reviewed exists? Do you have peer reviewed studies demonstrating that some fans at baseball games like to eat hot dogs? I suspect you don’t. Therefore, you have no reason to believe it, so it must be false. That is the kind of reasoning you are using, and it is faulty.

With regard to your thoughts on the universe, I asked you to provide peer reviewed scientific research that leads you to believe the universe is the way you perceive it. You describe a universe containing some kind of living quantum computer. This kind of claim demands a plausible set of equations. That’s how cosmology works. When proposing a causal relationship in sociology, one need only show a correlation and then offer a plausible explanation using accepted principles of human psychology. I have done both of these things. Do you wish to dispute my claim that honor killings and female mutilation are correlated to religious ideology? Do you wish to dispute my reference to the accepted principle that childhood indoctrination causes adult dysfunction? Do you wish to dispute my claim that religious ideology being forced on children is ideological indoctrination? Those are the three pieces of the puzzle. With which do you disagree?

If you agree with all three of these premises, what is your alternate explanation for the correlation?

 

 

Quote:

Quote:

Alison has very cleverly shifted the burden of proof

 

Who’s making the positive claim here? YOU ARE.

 

I am making a postive claim, of course. I am also supporting my claim with empirical observations and accepted principles of psychology. Let me explain again how you are shifting the burden of proof. I am not using peer reviewed sociological studies to demonstrate the causal relationship because there are other legitimate avenues for doing so. The method I’m using is combining readily available sociological data with well established principles of psychology in ways that are consistent with traditional accepted psychology. Your claim is that since I am not citing a study, my conclusion is false. That is simply not true. Things can be and are regularly demonstrated without studies.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Quote:

I also wonder: Is it possible that the reason nobody has bothered to prove that ideological indoctrination causes intra-family atrocity is because there is no good reason to believe otherwise?

Good point, why think of how animals evolve, when it’s obvious that the bactiral flagelium was designed.

 

 

Again with the hyperbolic red herring. Do you plan on doing an intense sociological study of the causal link between caloric intake at baseball fields and the existence of food vendors? Is there a competing theory that I need to know about, or are you comfortable admitting that people eat at baseball games because there are food vendors selling food? Some things are so obvious that they don’t demand peer review. What part of this is not obvious? There are acts committed exclusively or almost exclusively by religious ideologues. These acts are commanded in the ideology. The ideological commands cause the actions.

 

 

 

Quote:

Read the atheist ethicist blog, I think he makes a wonderful point on this. That is that evil people merely attribute their evilness to an ideology.

 

I disagree with his conclusion, but that’s another blog post. Honestly, I disagree with him on a lot of his ethical theory. Even so, if you wish to propose that religious people are evil… go ahead. " src="http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" />


 

 

 

 

 

 

My response

 

 

I wrote:

Let me clarify

I have issues with this

Quote:

* IF religion does not cause people to commit this particular kind of atrocity, THEN we must concede that people who would commit such atrocities are highly likely to become religious. This must be true because there are so few cases of this kind which are devoid of fanatic religiosity.

and this

Quote:

* However, we observe that the vast majority of people who commit such atrocities have been indoctrinated into religion since early childhood. If our theory is correct, and religion is not the cause of such atrocity, we should expect a proportionate number of non-indoctrinated people from non-religious cultures to convert to religion and then commit atrocities. We do not see this phenomenon.

First of all, we do see psychos in non-religious countries [they did not convert to religion, but that's not the point, and the condition that they must convert to religion is retarded considering the fact that the religious ones were born in a religious enviroment so it makes sense that they're religious]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ausonius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Arkl%C3%B6v

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Eklund_(murderer)

Second of all:

Here’s the problem, religion is very wide spread: everybody in every category is highly are likely to be religious.

The plane full of Red Cross volunteers flying to Lebanon are highly likely to be religious

The people buying hotdogs at the baseball game are highly likely to be religious.

Does that mean that being highly religious causes you to volunteer for the Red Cross or buy hotdogs?

You see hamby, the issue I have is the double standard. I know you attribute Martian Luther King’s action to something other than religion despite his speeches clearly mention God/religion.

Hell, you even use similar arguments I use against you

And then you do an about face on the psychotic person who caps their family.

You even said it in the blog, I have not seen a single case of “religious motivated family killings” happening outside of mental patients. [For the record, it's almost always neurological disorders rather than enviromental]

But if religion causes them, we SHOULD see otherwise sane people pull the trigger, but we don’t. Everytime, the police report shows that they have had a history of mental illness.

As for your comments on peer-review, it’s obvious to me that God exists, so why should I get data to back it up? I mean it’s obvious right?

Seriously, they have sociology and psychology journals for a reason and I don’t think “well it’s obvious” is going to cut it.

In fact, using psychology and what it has to say about bias, I can say with authority that “it’s so obvious” is an absolutly horrible way to “prove” something and only acts as an excuse not to provide data.

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Here's the second half of my

Here's the second half of my response:

 

 

Quote:

This statement is so general as to be useless. Anything taken to the extreme? What does that mean? Can moderation, taken to the extreme, cause psychological damage? Can good critical thinking, taken to the extreme, cause psychological damage? Clearly, you’re just being hyperbolic to try to lessen the impact of my argument. No, some things are, in and of themselves, “extreme” in the sense that they alter the way humans think and change their perception of reality to such a degree that they act irrationally and dysfunctionally. Ideologically indoctrinated religion is one of these things, and your denial is just that. A denial.

 

yeah, too much critical thinking can cause damage, ever see rain man? What if every time you see a commercial, you rush to the computer and double-check every fact mentioned? Pretty much borderline OCD [or  CDO as I call it so the letters are in alphabetical order like they should be]

 

 

And if religion causes this, why do we see so many "exceptions?" why aren't more people capping their family members? It is unsurprising that you can find nut jobs out of the billions of people that believe.

 

Quote:

Again with the hyperbolic red herring. Do you plan on doing an intense sociological study of the causal link between caloric intake at baseball fields and the existence of food vendors? Is there a competing theory that I need to know about, or are you comfortable admitting that people eat at baseball games because there are food vendors selling food? Some things are so obvious that they don’t demand peer review. What part of this is not obvious? There are acts committed exclusively or almost exclusively by religious ideologues. These acts are commanded in the ideology. The ideological commands cause the actions.

 

I replied to the italicsed part at the end in my previous response, but for the food vendors, you are making a claim about human cognition which is rather more complicated than a bunch of red necks getting drunk at the stadium.

 

 

Remember when I asked you for a mechanism to distinguish between what is caused by religion, and what isn't? that would be kinda important.  All you said is psychology, which is as vague as Eloise saying that God is the universe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh boy! Now Kevin is in

Oh boy! Now Kevin is in this!

 

 

Mr Brown wrote:

[blockquote]some things are, in and of themselves, “extreme”[/blockquote]

Hell Yeah some things are!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM3jFVJVe_w

:P

[blockquote]Strawman. If I have to supply Peer reviewed studies, than why don’t you?

Is Peer review not part of the scientific process? YES it is absolutly crucial to it.

I do recall you on the RRS boards asking me to show said studies about my thoughts on the nature of the universe.[/blockquote]

…Hamby’s article does not say, ‘Peer review is an unimportant part of science.’

In any case, even if it did, that would not be a strawman fallacy. It would just be incorrect.

Is it possible to do science without having a peer review panel or a journal to publish your finding in? Yes, it is. I don’t think anyone (including yourself) would argue against that. Peer review is just another tool for weeding out mistakes and poorly done research and/or research methods.

As Hamby said, some things are so obvious (or, at the very least, so obvious in contemporary times) that they preclude requiring peer reviewed study or publication. I’m reading a lot of Szilard at the moment, so one good example would be explosive nuclear fission and the military applications thereof. The Manhatten Project was not public (for obvious enough reasons), and thereby, none of it’s research was peer reviewed or published in a journal – but the success of the science involved is self-evident.

Maybe you meant to say that you don’t think that Hamby’s argument is correct? Well, fine, but why can’t you just say that? Why does it always have to be such a drama show with you?

Moreover, if that’s the case, why is Hamby wrong? You haven’t produced any of your own arguments here – you just got flabbergasted and linked to another blog. Why can’t you just write something concisely and elegantly, as Hamby has already gone to the trouble of doing, explaining your own position?

 

 

 

 

Now for some fun!

 

 

Quote:

 

As Hamby said, some things are so obvious (or, at the very least, so obvious in contemporary times) that they preclude requiring peer reviewed study or publication. I’m reading a lot of Szilard at the moment, so one good example would be explosive nuclear fission and the military applications thereof. The Manhatten Project was not public (for obvious enough reasons), and thereby, none of it’s research was peer reviewed or published in a journal – but the success of the science involved is self-evident.

 

Okay God is so obvious I don't need proof! neener neener!

 

 

As for the Manhanten project, yeah it was peer reviewed, by the other scientisits working on the project.

 

 

Quote:

 

Moreover, if that’s the case, why is Hamby wrong?

 

 

He needs data to back it up. I'm sorry, he doesn't get a free pass.

 

 

Quote:

You haven’t produced any of your own arguments here – you just got flabbergasted and linked to another blog. Why can’t you just write something concisely and elegantly, as Hamby has already gone to the trouble of doing, explaining your own position?

 

 

 

Maybe I will express my views on religion and society [which are irrelevant to whether Hamby is correct], but in a different topic.

 

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
So Kevin does yet live.

So Kevin does yet live.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So Kevin does

Vastet wrote:
So Kevin does yet live.

 

 

On Hamby's blog he said he doesn't come here anymore

 

 

Good riddance as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I can't say I'll shed tears

I can't say I'll shed tears over it either. lol.
Anyway, sorry for the derail. Back to your previously scheduled program. Smiling

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Christianity (and

Quote:
Christianity (and Islam) teach people from childhood that there are things which are true despite any and all evidence they might see. In fact, they are often taught that if they succumb to the sin of doubt, they will be horrendously tortured for all of eternity. Science, logic, and critical thinking are tricks of a magical and inscrutable evil being whose sole purpose in life is to capture the immortal soul of those who are foolish enough to believe their own observations.
 

What I've always found bizarre are these make believe facts that get passed around, like they are consistent with reality, what's even more bizarre is when they're passed around by semi-intelligent individuals. It's always in relation their pet sort of grievances, but somewhat delusional none-the-less. 

I've been raised in a pentecostal home, and I was part of choir that traveled all across the country. I was also an individual who visited various churches, many of the "mega-churches" across, the country, listening to the sermons of Rob Parsley, Creflo Dollar, TD Jakes, Benny Hinn. So it's easy for me to detect a strawman of this group, even more so when taken to be representative of Christianity as a whole as hamy suggests.

And the power of hamy like deluded generalizations have always amazed me "They are often taught that if they succumb to the sin of doubt, they will be horrendously tortured for all of eternity. " and :Science, logic, and critical thinking are tricks of a magical and inscrutable evil being "

Now, I don't doubt that in christian population of 2 billion people, that there might be a handful of individuals who claim this, and I'd also say in large populations of any group, even those that advocate a "reason driven life", you get all sorts of ill beliefs, the Jacobins are one such example.

But what's now become the sign for me as the epitome of a poor thinker, are individuals who can take a few (if even that) instances and claim them as representative of a whole. If I were to take the claim of mattshizzle and go around peddling that these are the views of majority of atheist, I'd be laughed off stage. 

In my years of Evangelical Christianity, I have never heard one person ever tell me that doubts will horrendously lead me to hell. And I've been a man of doubt all my life. Nor have I heard an individual claim that science, logic, and critical thinking are the products of an evil being, I may have heard something along the lines that the theory of evolution is the devils work, but never have I heard it applied to the entire body of science.

Vitamins are evil? Clean water is evil? vaccinations are evil? Even if we were to take a sect of Christianity, such as evangelicals, that are in fact better educated than the rest of the American populace, we are not going to find this mythical plea of evil in regards to learning.

 

Notice even the creationist lobby doesn't claim that evolution shouldn't be taught, they just propose that their alternative be taught along with it. In fact they encourage children to cast their doubts on evolution, and to thinking critically about it, on stickers on the text books they read from. These theist in such endeavors, exalt critical thinking, and they actually believe that critical thinking, and doubt serves in their favor, not against it. It's why the Ray Comforts of the world seek to engage in debates with scientist and the like. Because they actually believe that thinking critical, logically, and with doubt will lead individuals to their worldview, no differently than many atheist such as hamy due, who believe their worldview is the only viable one that emerges from doubt and criticial thinking. 

In my ethnic evangelical community, without a college educated, you'd be hard pressed to find respect among these church attending folk, or even to find a wife. It's a community that encourages individuals to pursue medical careers, engineering degrees, and other lucrative fields in the sciences and else where. 

What i would like to offer to gauge hamy's intellectual honesty, is an eat your sock challenge. I'd be willing to go into the "Christianforums.com," the largest Internet network of Christians to my knowledge, and ask if these Christians that belong to variety of christian denominations, but mainly evangelical Christianity, if they agree with Hamy's statement about science, logic, critical thinking, and doubt. 

If we find that the majority of individuals don't agree with those statements hamy attributes to them, I would like to hear Hamy claim that he was wrong?.I do find this to be a good measure of actually proving him wrong, the sample selection if anything serves in his favor. Now, the question is if hamy is up for an actual endeavor to validate his claims as anything other than deluded gooblygook, and the product of his own insecurities, rather than any sense of intellectual vigor. 

To make it more interesting I'll even donate 20$ to the RRS, if I'm wrong, and Hamy views of the general theist view is correct. 

I think I'm being more than reasonably fair, but let's see if he'll bite. 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

I support what Hamby said, and re-enforce his experiences with christianity with my own.

 

The "doubt leads to eternal damnation" thing is actually very common.

 

As a christian, I was told this a lot when I kept asking questions.

 

 

 

 

 

As for the science part, that is also true in my experience. Anything that directly conflicts with scripture must be wrong. I think you will find a hard time finding evangelicals that will admit the bible is not infallible.

 

In fact, there were even videos and other material for kids that taught these things. It's not like it was just one church. It was then re-enforced at the christian school I went to. (Which was protestant...and there I learned all catholics go to hell. Before that school, I went to a catholic school...so of course doubts sprang in my mind from this)

 

Dancing was sin, and being caught doing that or having "watched movies" at a theatre that were non-christian (someone was caught for watching the lion king) were offenses that could get you expelled. I really wonder what kind of christians you know, because the majority I have ever met fit in line exactly with what Hamby says. This private school took most of the students in the area. It was larger than the public school there.

 

In my evangelical community college educated was looked down upon as "trying to be better than everyone else". Unless it was a christian university. In that case, it was okay somehow. No one ever explained why to me.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Did I say Kevin doesn't come

Did I say Kevin doesn't come here anymore?  I don't think I said that.  I didn't mean to say that.  Maybe I misunderstood the question.  I did say I'd been coming here a little less as a matter of expediency and too damn much to do in one day, but that's all I remember saying.

Somebody point me to where it looks like I said KB isn't coming here anymore, and I'll fix it.  I try not to speak for other people when I don't have permission to do so.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Did I say

Hambydammit wrote:

Did I say Kevin doesn't come here anymore?  I don't think I said that.  I didn't mean to say that.  Maybe I misunderstood the question.  I did say I'd been coming here a little less as a matter of expediency and too damn much to do in one day, but that's all I remember saying.

Somebody point me to where it looks like I said KB isn't coming here anymore, and I'll fix it.  I try not to speak for other people when I don't have permission to do so.

 

You didn't say it, he did.

 

 

I told him to take it to the RRS

 

Kevin wrote:

I don’t go to the RRS boards anymore, Alison. It was fun while it lasted, but I’ve got other things on my plate.

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
OHH... sorry.  Damn English

OHH... sorry.  Damn English Grammar!

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
 To Twelve: I have to say,

 To Twelve:

 

I have to say, anecdotally, as someone who was educated at a private, Evangelical school, that there is indeed a push against science.  The basic problem is that there is a large religious population that thinks the Bible is literal, inherent Truth with a big "T".  I was taught things like the canopy theory because they could not reconcile a literal world-wide flood with scientific evidence.  They would talk about how a human could survive inside a whale for the Jonah story.  And it isn't like this was a "wacko" school either, it was well respected in a community of about sixty thousand people.  The problem was every time the Bible conflicted with what we understand about the world, they put their heads in the sand and started making up things that were really nuts.  There was also the very strongly held idea that the most important thing in your life had to be religion, and it should be put before yourself and even before humanity, which I think is wrong.

 

At my school, there was not a blatant, "science is bad" attitude, in fact they encouraged science.  But it is inherently dishonest to approach the world with a set of pre-defined events and "facts" that have nothing to do with what people can see, feel, touch and evaluate.  And I did have friends who went to churches where you were criticized for questioning religious authority, and you could be "punished" with literal hell-fire and eternal torment and I saw that first hand as well.  I was terrified of burning for eternity.

 

I think you will find that when atheists criticize religion they are often criticizing literal Bible believers and "fundamentalists".  I am the same way...honestly, most "liberal" Chrisitans live totally secular lives anyway and are perfectly willing to abandon Biblical law when it becomes inconvenient or unsupportable, and I really don't have a big problem with that.  But there *is* a negative social impact caused by fundamentalist religion and I know that because I have seen it, and I have lived it.  And my fundamentalist upbringing was not even that bad...we did not pass snakes around or refuse medical care or blood transfusions, or waste half our free time going door to door bugging people, or murder someone because they sinned, or "marry" a little girl, or demonstrate against an "evil" atheist politician.  And those things happen systematically in some sects.

 

If fundamentalism and literalism did not exist in America, atheists would not be so vocal because we would not have much to complain about.  When you say that the fundamentalist attitude is not a valid representation of the whole of Christianity I have to take issue.  It may not represent all of them, but it certainly represents a larger percentage than you seem to be willing to admit, especially in America and in developing countries.  I live in Washington state, which is fairly liberal on the coast, but even here you get people pushing religious morality through the legislature for things like abortion, homosexuality, etc. and even at a national level at least half the country thinks that if someone does not believe in the Christian God they cannot be trusted.

 

It is a problem.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I have to

mellestad wrote:

I have to say, anecdotally, as someone who was educated at a private, Evangelical school, that there is indeed a push against science.  

clockcat wrote:
As for the science part, that is also true in my experience. Anything that directly conflicts with scripture must be wrong. I think you will find a hard time finding evangelicals that will admit the bible is not infallible.

The problem with you and ClockCat, and the flood of such atheist, is that they have religious googbeygook conception of science. Atheist tend to have these magic words, like "knowledge" and "science" that supposedly have some sort of sacred specification, that fundies and the like oppress. They've acquired this sort of development of the terms, as remnants of their Christian upbringing, which claim a sacred, and specific sense of truth.

I'm gonna propose a broad definition of what it means to think scientifically. Thinking scientifically means an examination of things from a detached and methodological perspective. Fundies, and other sorts of theists are not opposed to this form of thinking, they only oppose this sort of thinking when it leads to certain conclusions that erode their community, and cherished values. It's not that they are opposed to doubt, in fact they encourage any sense of doubt that strengthens their community, and supports their values, such as doubting evolution, or a particular liberal political stance.

So let's say some years from know, some viable evidence emerges that bring the theory of evolution into doubt, fundies and such sects would be at the forefront of supporting, and encouraging the public awareness of it. They'd be foaming fans of these scientific findings, and endevours.

Notice here, what we are speaking about is not any broad sense of the term science, but rather a particular and very small spec in the grand scheme of things of what science encompasses.

My fundie friends, who are prominent business leaders, think highly scientifically when it comes to the endeavors of their field. In playing basketball many of them think scientifically as to how we should conduct the game, and how they should maneuver, while I favor an "unscientific" sort play for the sheer fun of it, and reckless abandonment of the goal of winning.

The dilemma that you and clockcat paint is not particular to fundies or theist, but rather to nearly all human beings, theist and atheist alike. It's not that we discourage all doubt, but that we discourage doubt when it comes to notions we value, such as a community.

A particular sort of cherished value, among the Dawkins like, is religion as the root of all evil, and religion as the motivation for terrorist bombers. These atheist are deludingly opposed to the scientific evidence and research that counters this cherished beliefs, as fundies are to the scientific evidence that opposes the infallibility of the bible.

When you point out the various scientific research and analysis done by the University of Chicago Project on Terrorism, Scott Atran, the MI5, it's not difficult to see the illness of fundie theist on display here. Rather than a detached, and unemotional examination of the work, or an encouragement of a reexamination of these finding, or the encouragement of anything remotely scientific, the argument quickly resorts to claim that these researchers are hacks, theist (when pointed out that they're not, the claim becomes their jealous of the fame other atheist have achieved), etc.. etc... 

This is true even for Humanism, humanism like fundies encourage or are atleast indifferent to doubts of everything outside of humanistic values. They don't encourage doubting humanism. And secular critics of humanism, such as John N. Gray, are met with the same sort of dogmatic opposition. If I were to create post in this forums, regardless if they were true or not, that cast doubts on the honesty of the RRS, I'd be quickly banned, and my post would be deleted. Fundies and similar theist are opposed to certain doubts for the same reasons. 

This sort of phenomena is very human, most of us can easily relate to it, in terms of our relationships. We don't encourage or support doubts about out faithfulness, and honesty, and integrity. If a girlfriend we were seeing, said that she wanted to scientifically examine if we were cheating or not, and asked for phone records, to see our emails, to hire a private investigator to secretly follow us around when she wasn't there, we'd be passionately opposed to such doubts. It's very human to discourage the doubts of our valued relationships, and the things we value, fundies are no special case here. 

But it's as silly to claim that they are opposed to any broad sense of science, that applies to examining of Pokemon cards, to chess moves. 

Let's say I was seeing another woman, but I still value having a relationship with my current girl friend,  and I enjoy the company of the other woman, but not enough that I'd leave my girl friend for her. You can see why I'd be opposed to any sort of doubts that arise in my girlfriend about my faithfulness. Even if she were to find traces of evidence that suggests that I just might be, I'd deny it through the skin of my teeth. 

Now I could be one of the great scientist, would you say by discouraging my girlfriends scientific examination of my fidelity, that I'm holding back science, that I'm disgrace to my profession? Or even such a general claim that I'm opposed to scientific thinking?

Quote:
I think you will find that when atheists criticize religion they are often criticizing literal Bible believers and "fundamentalists".  I am the same way...honestly, most "liberal" Christan's live totally secular lives anyway

Well, some gripe here, the large body of theist is in the middle of this scale of fundies, and liberals. Orthodox Christianity, Mainline Christianity, Catholicism, are far from literalistic about their beliefs. 

And secondly it's not that liberal christians live totally secular lives, but rather that liberal atheist live religious lives. They hold these cherished beliefs that they claim are secular, which in fact are remanats of the religious past they cling to.

Quote:
When you say that the fundamentalist attitude is not a valid representation of the whole of Christianity I have to take issue.  It may not represent all of them, but it certainly represents a larger percentage than you seem to be willing to admit,

Well, its a fact fundies (not the same as evangelicals) don't make up a percentage large enough to be even remotely close to representing the over 2 billion christian population. Secondly the represention of fundies you present, is not even a valid makeup of most fundies. Most fundies I know are rather apolitical, and asceintific concerning the natural sciences, most fundies are not opposed to college education. How many of those identifying themselves with fundementalism attend fundie schools, over secular one? Sure you may know many who do attend religious school, but they represntive of the large body of fundies?

I can understand why many atheist here might get that picture, since much of their exposure to fundies comes from the fundies that frequent these sort of boards. But let's remember that only a paricular type of fundie would care to even visit here, and it'd be a failure to assume that such fundies make up the large population.

We get fooled into believing that since a few fundies are quite vocal, that they have large choir behind them, than just a few very loud voices.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
ClockCat wrote:As a

ClockCat wrote:

As a christian, I was told this a lot when I kept asking

You were told that magical births without two sets of DNA, can happen via "ghost".

You were told that despite geological evidence that the earth and everything on it was created in 6 days.

So when caught in a lie, the bastion of the delusional is " metaphor" , or "Cherry picking".

 


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:This is true

theTwelve wrote:
This is true even for Humanism, humanism like fundies encourage or are atleast indifferent to doubts of everything outside of humanistic values. They don't encourage doubting humanism. And secular critics of humanism, such as John N. Gray, are met with the same sort of dogmatic opposition. If I were to create post in this forums, regardless if they were true or not, that cast doubts on the honesty of the RRS, I'd be quickly banned, and my post would be deleted. Fundies and similar theist are opposed to certain doubts for the same reasons.

Wow, is that ever not true. Some of the mods here have argued to delete even libellous posts which were kept simply as examples of people behaving like idiots. This would be one of the most accepting sites I've ever seen. We even have a holocaust denier on the forum who hasn't been banned basically because the people running the site don't like censorship. So that's not fair criticism by a long shot.

theTwelve wrote:
Let's say I was seeing another woman, but I still value having a relationship with my current girl friend,  and I enjoy the company of the other woman, but not enough that I'd leave my girl friend for her. You can see why I'd be opposed to any sort of doubts that arise in my girlfriend about my faithfulness. Even if she were to find traces of evidence that suggests that I just might be, I'd deny it through the skin of my teeth. 

Now I could be one of the great scientist, would you say by discouraging my girlfriends scientific examination of my fidelity, that I'm holding back science, that I'm disgrace to my profession? Or even such a general claim that I'm opposed to scientific thinking?

Ah ... you've given an example of something where scientific evidence would point to the truth of the matter. It would be socially unpleasant, but the scientific method would definitely show that you were "cheating" (if you weren't in an open relationship). So you're not really making a case, here. What you seem to be saying is that someone who is bowing to social pressures can be forgiven, but that doesn't say anything about the truth of the story.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
So Twelve, I think I read

So Twelve, I think I read two main points from your post.

 

1. Fundies cherry-pick science, but everyone else does too so it is OK.

 

2. Atheists are really religious, and just lying to ourselves for some reason.

 

OK. 

1. The difference is, our basic belief requires us to be flexible.  If I make a claim, it can be disproved and unless I turn hypocrite, I will change my stance.  If a fundie makes a claim, it cannot be disproved, no matter what.  That is what I mean by pre-defined "Truth".  And in the religious case it applied to more than just fundies, it applies to the entire swath of belief besides liberal Christians who only believe in a supernatural creator of the universe.  I really don't know if Dawkins says the root of all evil is religion, but I certainly do not think so.  I think religion is very useful, I just think don't think first world nations need it anymore.

 

2. I imagine you know where a debate about secular morality would go, so do we really need to have that debate?  You will claim religion is the root of morality, I will claim necessity is the root of morality.  Unless you have some brand new evidence, I think my explanation is more accurate believable.

 

You also try to make the average religious person sound more rational than they are.  I was watching Extreme Home Makeover (or something like that) this weekend, where they rebuilt the houses of some crippled and mentally retarded people.  I think I heard ten times that it was God's will, because, you know, God makes people retarded cripples, not genetics.  The idea that God physically makes things happen on an individual, personal level is very common in America, and I think that is the very basis of fundamentalism.  These people literally believe in magic, and it is very common.  However, there is hope.  Religious morality, and even religious interpretation of the common man obviously follows where secular morality and science leads, albeit slowly.

 

I also have to disagree with the idea that atheists punish doubt.  I just can't say I have seen that, and honestly it makes your argument sound sort of ridiculous to me because it is so...well, it is an outright lie isn't it?  At the least, it seems to be a broad mis-interpretation.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.