Posted: 11/4/17 at 5:10am
You do realize, that by going into these rants about how "all religion is bad and full of evil," gives off the vibe that you have zero respect for others and thereby lack the ability to politely disagreeing with people. And, it's not a progressive way of thinking. It's something that just simply makes you look like an ass.
Posted: 11/4/17 at 6:34am
Not even a claim I made. I said earlier that religion has a lot of good, a lot of neutral/benign and some bad. But it’s the bad that keeps me up at night - and destroys the lives of gay people, women, threatens public safety etc.
When I say something like “religion is awful to gay people” I refer specifically to the negative aspects. Religion is far too diverse and complex to be able to account for all effects in a simple phrase. The only thing we can say that is universally true for absolutely everything in religion is that it is basically all factually wrong. It’s always factually wrong but only often morally wrong (or enough to be concerned about).
You do realise that one of the best examples of why religion is so awful is the way it infests US politics, right? The Republican Party is the Christian Party of America. I’d be absolutely shocked if people here thought republican views - particularly around social policies - is because there is something wrong with Republicans or their supporters. They are simply puppets for the religious systems they have been indoctrinated into.
Updated On: 11/4/17 at 06:34 AM
Posted: 11/4/17 at 6:34am
Posted: 11/4/17 at 11:24am
The Republican Party is the Christian Party of America
Nah, they are just contemptible and opportunistic idiots who amorally pander to the prejudices of their perceived audience. Their "base" identify as Christian, yet this "indoctrination" seems to be forgotten at moments when they really do have a chance to follow their moral code - such as the refugee crisis, when these "Christians" looked the other way while an unprecedented humanitarian crisis unfolded before them. What would Jesus do?
They pick and choose what parts of their faith to hone in on, and this is because of their inmate human nature, not because they are following "the word of the Lord".
It is basically all factually wrong
So what? An argument against magical thinking is not necessarily the same thing as an argument against organised religion. I've seen firsthand the healing that can come from religious faith, such as the mother who lost her daughter to cystic fibrosis at 28 and absolutely believes that she will see her again. Who are you to begrudge her that delusion if it helps her get out of bed and struggle onward with this wretched existence?
I feel like this ground has been covered before so maybe we're just talking in circles at this stage. Bye.
Edit - I'm using a bockety shared IPad right now which is driving me crazy auto"correcting" things, and the wonky cursor makes it hard to change them back - "inate human nature", "organized" - I will say a prayer to St. Jude, patron saint of lost causes, for both my device and for this thread.
Updated On: 11/4/17 at 11:24 AM
Posted: 11/4/17 at 5:18pm
We do have an interesting fundamental difference in how we interpret the negative behaviours and attitudes of religious people - you thinking it is more to do with their personal disposition ‘human nature’ and me the religious systems they were indoctrinated into.
When someone tells us that homosexuality or abortion is against their religious beliefs - and (at least in the case of Christianity) there is clear theological reasons why this would be the case (I am assuming most of you have had a Christian religious education - I think it is uncontroversial to say it is widely accepted these two practices are generally criticised within Christianity with clear reasons why), there comes a point where we can accept that people really do believe what they say they believe. I don’t know if it is needed to apply an almost conspiratorial lens that there is something wrong with their disposition. I mean, you would then lead to what I would say are problematic (or even racist) arguments that there is something ‘wrong’ with the disposition of the majority of the people in the Middle East (given the majority likely hold negative attitudes towards homosexuality. I don’t believe so. They’ve simply been indoctrinated).
It is a lot simpler and makes more sense to me to see that people are ‘taught to hate’ and any honest reading of religious doctrine and religious belief helps us understand why it can be a source of this ‘hate’.
See also:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
Updated On: 11/4/17 at 05:18 PM
Posted: 11/4/17 at 5:48pm
It is a lot simpler and makes more sense to me
Simple reasoning is the bane of understanding human behavior.
people are ‘taught to hate’
The whole "carefully taught" thing is a gorgeous lyric and pretty insightful for the late 1940s, but you should really read about some of the newer understanding
Do babies show bias? Researchers seek the roots of racism...
Posted: 11/4/17 at 6:46pm
Let’s keep it specific to my claims. Are you saying that the majority of middle eastern people have an innate prejudice against homosexuals? And more so than western people ? (This is a necessary truth if you claim prejudiced attitudes towards gay people are the result of innate human characteristics and not religious doctrine). I don’t believe you could possibly think this - and the actual evidence does not support this either given look at most scientific peer-reviewed journal articles and you will consistently find religious beliefs to be a strong associate of negative attitudes towards homosexuality AND we have a clear theoretical/causal explanation of why this is the case because it is prescribed in the doctrine.
The intellectual gymnastics to find any explanation other than religion does not make sense. I agree we don’t want to oversimply but we want parsimony and evidence.
This very point is a core aspect of Sam Harris’ talking points — it seems that many people don’t accept that specific beliefs that are taught have specific consequences for the attitudes and behaviours of people.
if you are taught to believe that god made man and woman to be together for a specific purpose of raising family then this can have specific consequences for how you might see or value gay people and gay relationships.
If you are taught to believe that God creates and has a plan for every child then this can have specific consequences for how you might see or value abortion.
If you are taught that depicting the prophet Mohammad in cartoon form is sacreligious then this can have specific consequences for how you might react to said cartoons (and has resulted in terrible violence).
The relationship between beliefs (of any kind), attitudes and behaviours is a core, core tenant of the process and outcomes of human cognition.
Updated On: 11/4/17 at 06:46 PM
Posted: 11/4/17 at 7:01pm
I garantuee if you did an experiment where you randomly allocate adopted children to a fundamentalist religious household and other children to an atheist household you would find on average the children in the fundamentalist religious household would hold less positive attitudes towards homosexuality, abortion, evolution etc.
If you claim it’s simply ‘innate’ you would find that this upbringing wouldn’t matter and the children of both households could have an equal chance of holding negative attitudes towards homosexuality or evolution. It simply wouldn’t happen (on average) - it goes against everything we know about the power of indoctrination and education.
Of course, religion isn’t the ONLY factor here (for example hyper masculine culture is quite anti gay. And not everyone interprets religious doctrine in the same way). But it’s a big one for these outcomes.
if you don’t think religion has any impact on the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of people then of course there would be no need to criticise it. But I am just shocked that anyone could think this is true. You’d be saying that atheists are innately the most morally virtuous people alive. It wouldn’t make sense.
Updated On: 11/4/17 at 07:01 PM
Posted: 11/4/17 at 8:39pm
I'm an atheist. You don't know who you're arguing with or half the time what you're arguing. You can continue to present the transcripts of your debate club performance but it is pretty clear that it is the hectoring, the endless harangue that bothers people. Not what you don't believe. Tho you certainly don't believe it with a religious fervor. People have said it again and again yet you go back to the debate nobody's engaging in with you.
Posted: 11/4/17 at 8:54pm
Of course religion isn't the only factor here (for example hyper masculine culture is quite anti gay
Yeah...along with basically everybody else. The world at large is anti-gay. Even gay people are anti-gay. See "masc only" profiles, or general bottom ridicule. I seem to recall your good self taking some heat for anti-femme comments only a couple of short years ago. Where did that come from?
No, religion is not the only factor, but for some reason it is the only one you choose to focus on, and I am not making a blanket dismissal of your arguments - but when you blur your anti-religion fanaticism with an almost gleeful reaction to every terrorist incident, that's what rubs me up the wrong way and that's primarily what I am reacting to.
I feel that misogynistic young men are latching onto a gang mindset in order to live out their murder fantasies, caused by larger societal problems, lack of opportunity, marginalisation....and hundreds of other reasons that are way above my head. What about the roving armies in Africa who rape and ravage communities? That's purely religion's fault?
Please take any questions as rhetorical. Bye.*
* I mean it this time.
Updated On: 11/4/17 at 08:54 PM
Posted: 11/4/17 at 11:07pm
FrankieSay said: "I'm an atheist. You don't know who you're arguing with or half the time what you're arguing. You can continue to present the transcripts of your debate club performance but it is pretty clear that it is the hectoring, the endless harangue that bothers people. Not what you don't believe. Tho you certainly don't believe it with a religious fervor. People have said it again and again yet you go back to the debate nobody's engaging in with you."
But the weird this is you and others still are engaging. You can’t say you aren’t when you clearly are haha. Anyway, I’m pretty satisfied with my responses in post 81 and 82 in this thread. So there is perhaps no need to continue.
What continues to be difficult to deal with - and quite frankly boring - is reponses like this though. It’s very easy to say something like “you don’t know what you’re talking about”. I mean, my perception of many of you here is that you have never studied religion or the social sciences (except one person who I suspect is actively religious or has close religious ties - so of course they are particularly enraged at me). Yes I am an ‘atheist’ but I’m a baptized confirmed communioned catholic with formal religious education. I’m not just some nerd in my mother’s basement talking **** about something I don’t know anything about. But I choose not to speculate and distract us with this because I think it’s a waste of time. I’d rather talk about why it’s probably not the case that anti-gay attitudes held by religious people are dispositional characteristics but rather the direct result of their religious indoctrination.
Jay, even though we may not agree I do appreciate the thought you have put in your recent responses and you do have a good memory.
Updated On: 11/4/17 at 11:07 PM
Posted: 11/6/17 at 4:17pm
You don't know who you're arguing with or half the time what you're arguing.
It doesn't matter because he doesn't actually care. It's just verbal masturbation. For example:
"Anyway, I’m pretty satisfied with my responses in post 81 and 82 in this thread. So there is perhaps no need to continue."
He just wants people to respond so he can prolong his climax. Even when there was "no need to continue", he does anyway so he can go on about himself and continue to control the topic and direction of the conversation.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
