Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Convicting Religion and Atheists

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 3:52:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To the Theists who think that the only argument Atheists have to criticize religion is point out violent atrocities committed by religious adherents, you're wrong. Some Atheists may use that one, but I for one, do not as I find it rather weak.

There is no need to point out atrocities committed by believers, the more effective way of convicting religion is going straight to it's scripture and targeting it's doctrines. And guess what! Many Atheists, including the well known ones, have done exactly that.

Any Atheist that uses a religious adherent committing an atrocity to convict religion is in error and any Theist who thinks that's the only argument against Theism, is false.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 3:55:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 3:52:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To the Theists who think that the only argument Atheists have to criticize religion is point out violent atrocities committed by religious adherents, you're wrong. Some Atheists may use that one, but I for one, do not as I find it rather weak.

There is no need to point out atrocities committed by believers, the more effective way of convicting religion is going straight to it's scripture and targeting it's doctrines. And guess what! Many Atheists, including the well known ones, have done exactly that.

Any Atheist that uses a religious adherent committing an atrocity to convict religion is in error and any Theist who thinks that's the only argument against Theism, is false.

So.... do you convict God?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 4:00:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, I convict the doctrines.

I suppose I shouldn't say "convict" but rather that, when trying to explain to religious people that religion is false and immoral, I don't need to point to acts by religious adherents, I can point to the doctrines and show why they are false and immoral.

So, it's not convicting per say, but rather showing why religion is false and immoral.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 4:04:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 4:00:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No, I convict the doctrines.

I suppose I shouldn't say "convict" but rather that, when trying to explain to religious people that religion is false and immoral, I don't need to point to acts by religious adherents, I can point to the doctrines and show why they are false and immoral.

So, it's not convicting per say, but rather showing why religion is false and immoral.

Who wrote the doctrines?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 4:13:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 4:04:54 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/14/2010 4:00:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No, I convict the doctrines.

I suppose I shouldn't say "convict" but rather that, when trying to explain to religious people that religion is false and immoral, I don't need to point to acts by religious adherents, I can point to the doctrines and show why they are false and immoral.

So, it's not convicting per say, but rather showing why religion is false and immoral.

Who wrote the doctrines?

lol, men. your point?
signature
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 5:22:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 3:52:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To the Theists who think that the only argument Atheists have to criticize religion is point out violent atrocities committed by religious adherents, you're wrong. Some Atheists may use that one, but I for one, do not as I find it rather weak.

Weak is overly generous, such observations may lead to anti-clericism or opposition to organised religion, but have no bearing on the ultimate truth of a religious claim.

There is no need to point out atrocities committed by believers, the more effective way of convicting religion is going straight to it's scripture and targeting it's doctrines. And guess what! Many Atheists, including the well known ones, have done exactly that.

Yep.

Any Atheist that uses a religious adherent committing an atrocity to convict religion is in error and any Theist who thinks that's the only argument against Theism, is false.

No you can use that to convict a religion as a tribal social construct, as an argument against theism it is a fallacy.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 11:10:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
But why do we have to have it Atheism Vs Theism. why can't we have peace? and I'm not pointing fingers. Both sides prolong this retarded fight that will get us no where in the end
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:50:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nice, Geo.

I'd even go as far as to say that reilgion don't cause war as many say but any Ideology. Modern atheists then to over look the fact every communist government persecuted religion in varying extents. The atheistic Tamil Tiger‘s perfected modern suicide bombings(and have the highest amount in the last 30 years), though there attacks are largely political they targeted many of Sri Lanka's high class Buddhists and Hindus.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:58:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 3:52:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To the Theists who think that the only argument Atheists have to criticize religion is point out violent atrocities committed by religious adherents, you're wrong. Some Atheists may use that one, but I for one, do not as I find it rather weak.

There is no need to point out atrocities committed by believers, the more effective way of convicting religion is going straight to it's scripture and targeting it's doctrines. And guess what! Many Atheists, including the well known ones, have done exactly that.

Any Atheist that uses a religious adherent committing an atrocity to convict religion is in error and any Theist who thinks that's the only argument against Theism, is false.

I agree with you in that the atrocities that have been conducted are the results of man's imperfection and would have been conducted under some other pretext. The actual criticisms of either atheism or theism should be looked at the net benefit or negative to individual growth. At the societal level variables outside of the core issue of belief or not enter and derail the basic argument.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 2:00:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 4:04:54 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/14/2010 4:00:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No, I convict the doctrines.

I suppose I shouldn't say "convict" but rather that, when trying to explain to religious people that religion is false and immoral, I don't need to point to acts by religious adherents, I can point to the doctrines and show why they are false and immoral.

So, it's not convicting per say, but rather showing why religion is false and immoral.

Who wrote the doctrines?

Irrelevant. Man makes rock music, but you don't critique rock listeners, you critique the music itself.

Not to mention, the men who made the doctrines are not the same men who follow the doctrines.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 2:12:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 1:58:40 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/14/2010 3:52:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To the Theists who think that the only argument Atheists have to criticize religion is point out violent atrocities committed by religious adherents, you're wrong. Some Atheists may use that one, but I for one, do not as I find it rather weak.

There is no need to point out atrocities committed by believers, the more effective way of convicting religion is going straight to it's scripture and targeting it's doctrines. And guess what! Many Atheists, including the well known ones, have done exactly that.

Any Atheist that uses a religious adherent committing an atrocity to convict religion is in error and any Theist who thinks that's the only argument against Theism, is false.

I agree with you in that the atrocities that have been conducted are the results of man's imperfection and would have been conducted under some other pretext.The actual criticisms of either atheism or theism should be looked at the net benefit or negative to individual growth.

Uh, no. Lol. That's just as invalid and bad of a criteria. Appeal to Consequences fallacy.

Believing in Christianity may help a person battle alcoholism or drug addiction, but that does not mean that Christianity is good or true.

At the societal level variables outside of the core issue of belief or not enter and derail the basic argument.

Explain. I don't fully understand what you're saying here.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 2:17:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 2:12:13 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/15/2010 1:58:40 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/14/2010 3:52:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To the Theists who think that the only argument Atheists have to criticize religion is point out violent atrocities committed by religious adherents, you're wrong. Some Atheists may use that one, but I for one, do not as I find it rather weak.

There is no need to point out atrocities committed by believers, the more effective way of convicting religion is going straight to it's scripture and targeting it's doctrines. And guess what! Many Atheists, including the well known ones, have done exactly that.

Any Atheist that uses a religious adherent committing an atrocity to convict religion is in error and any Theist who thinks that's the only argument against Theism, is false.

I agree with you in that the atrocities that have been conducted are the results of man's imperfection and would have been conducted under some other pretext.The actual criticisms of either atheism or theism should be looked at the net benefit or negative to individual growth.

Uh, no. Lol. That's just as invalid and bad of a criteria. Appeal to Consequences fallacy.
I reject your consequences fallacy. The net result is always of prime importance as long as the process costs are not greater than or corrupting to that result.

Believing in Christianity may help a person battle alcoholism or drug addiction, but that does not mean that Christianity is good or true.

At the societal level variables outside of the core issue of belief or not enter and derail the basic argument.

Explain. I don't fully understand what you're saying here.
The atrocities that are typically cited are generally not the result of faith, but rather external concerns like power and greed or fear. A Jew left to his own faith alone is not likely to be motivated in killing a Muslim, but when societal variables are brought into the equation in a community of Jews the faith becomes a pretext for other motivations.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 2:24:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 3:52:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Any Atheist that uses a religious adherent committing an atrocity to convict religion is in error and any Theist who thinks that's the only argument against Theism, is false.

Depends. It's perfectly valid to target a particular theological doctrine that purposefully dictates violence and condemning that doctrine either a. by showing that it is not textually supported i.e. no true <insert religious denomination adherence> would give rise to course of action described (incorrect or lacking interpretation of religious text) e.g. it's perfectly valid to attack the religious theology that gave rise to the persecution of deemed heretical orders (the inquisition) or b. that a particular violent theology is supported by doctrine e.g. by loosely defining war, Imams can justify violence against westerners by text and doctrine (though historical contextual issues apply). The only problem is when you equivocate a particular theological doctrine with theism as a whole under the argument.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 7:19:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The atrocities that are typically cited are generally not the result of faith, but rather external concerns like power and greed or fear. A Jew left to his own faith alone is not likely to be motivated in killing a Muslim, but when societal variables are brought into the equation in a community of Jews the faith becomes a pretext for other motivations.

This is a very simplistic view; in reality things are very much more complicated.

My issue is, and I would agree, that it isn't "Christianity itself," that causes people to claim that 9/11 was God's response to homosexuality and liberalism in the US. Nor is it "Islam itself", that makes people strap bombs to themselves and kill hundreds of innocent people. In this respect you are absolutely right, that it is not the religion itself, but to an extent the social circumstances people find themselves in.

The important problem, and the reason this is a very simplistic view; is that at the end of the day, someone does not strap a bomb to themselves because they are driven by power, greed or fear. They do it because they beleive that it is the right thing to do. In this respect, the attrocities are very, very much carried out because of faith.

Now you may think that such fanaticism is a special case; and not religious at all, I will assert that indoctrination by state, parents, or organisations; combined with an inherent need (although in a broad and general sense) to conform breeds a system where bad things happen; should the wrong people be in the wrong place.

In these cases; the worldview that stems from the indoctrination and confirmity can be pushed into particular directions by individuals who are, very much, driven by power, greed, fear or madness. It is made still easier when this particular beleif, or worldview is very subjective, rather than objective.

In religion, this sometimes leads to people blowing them, and others up; it also leads to people waving banners saying "God hates XXX," at military funerals, and causing a very, very significant number of people in a country that put men on the moon to beleive that the earth is 10,000 years old, in direct contradiction to all modern science. The peoples religious subjective worldview takes precedence and is asserted over their social, logical or scientific worldview; be this deviation great or small.

This situation, however, is not special to religion; Hitler exploited underlying anti-semitic feeling in Europe, Stalin and Lenin exploited the underlying anger of the proletariat, and, I'm sure, it would be possible for someone to exploit atheists general annoyance at the religious to nefarious means.

What is different is that religion provides the implicit framework to allow abuse; whereas in the above cases; the people in question had to build it themselves. This meant that while any smart person can exploit religion, it takes a truly special kind of evil person to exploit something else.

All arguments against religion that I have ever seen have, in any way, shape or form, are in some way stem from, or are based upon part of this argument.

Arguments using scripture, or contradictions in religion stem pick up on the persons subjective worldview contradicting the logical, or the scientific.

Arguments against the existence of God using science, or philosophy again, are based on trying to confront the religious about contradictions between the logical, and subjective.

Arguments using attrocities are based on the ease of exploiting the inherent religious framework.

In my experience, while there are a few religious people that I have met and respect that are able to reconcile their subjective religious, and objective worldviews in all ways; these are by far the minority, although this is by no means stating that the majority of religious people hold super-crazy beliefs.

It is not religion that is solely blame for the attrocities; any more than a jar of Nitroglycerin can be blamed for destroying a house.

At it's most fundamental level, like nitroglycerin, when correctly and properly contained and controlled by individuals in the right conditions, it does not explode. However, if they are not; both, by their very nature can easily cause explosions when shaken.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 12:13:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 2:17:50 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/15/2010 2:12:13 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/15/2010 1:58:40 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/14/2010 3:52:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To the Theists who think that the only argument Atheists have to criticize religion is point out violent atrocities committed by religious adherents, you're wrong. Some Atheists may use that one, but I for one, do not as I find it rather weak.

There is no need to point out atrocities committed by believers, the more effective way of convicting religion is going straight to it's scripture and targeting it's doctrines. And guess what! Many Atheists, including the well known ones, have done exactly that.

Any Atheist that uses a religious adherent committing an atrocity to convict religion is in error and any Theist who thinks that's the only argument against Theism, is false.

I agree with you in that the atrocities that have been conducted are the results of man's imperfection and would have been conducted under some other pretext.The actual criticisms of either atheism or theism should be looked at the net benefit or negative to individual growth.

Uh, no. Lol. That's just as invalid and bad of a criteria. Appeal to Consequences fallacy.
I reject your consequences fallacy.

Then you have thrown logic out the door and deny fact.

The net result is always of prime importance as long as the process costs are not greater than or corrupting to that result.

Again, that's not true. I.e. Believing that you are immortal might help you live a stress-free life, a better standard of living and comfort, but it's still a delusion and it's simply false as well as false hope.

Likewise with religion. It may help a person in their overall well being, but that says nothing about whether religion itself is inherently good or true.
Believing in Christianity may help a person battle alcoholism or drug addiction, but that does not mean that Christianity is good or true.

At the societal level variables outside of the core issue of belief or not enter and derail the basic argument.

Explain. I don't fully understand what you're saying here.
The atrocities that are typically cited are generally not the result of faith, but rather external concerns like power and greed or fear. A Jew left to his own faith alone is not likely to be motivated in killing a Muslim, but when societal variables are brought into the equation in a community of Jews the faith becomes a pretext for other motivations.

Not true. A person who has faith in a religion says that they will not die and be resurrected, will likely motivate a person to be willing to commit suicide or other dangerous acts in the name of their religion. If the terrorists who blew up the towers knew they had one life to live, they may not have done so. Not to mention, many violent acts like the crusades are a direct result of religion. The crusades were based on St. Augustines interpretation of scripture and commands.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat