Since the op thinks atheists don't know much about religion, perhaps the op could offer up the ONE best argument for "religion" and defend the argument?

Surely there must be that one check matey argument lurking out there! Bring it forth, so we may gut thy argument like a salmon.

All this vagueness doesn't help your case. I get plenty of greens on my diet without consuming more word salads.

(October 24, 2015 at 1:32 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: As I said... "willful blindness".

Ignorance and arrogance. Not quite as delusional as they come, but not far off.

(October 24, 2015 at 1:29 pm)Delicate Wrote: Like I said elsewhere, this whole bugaboo of interpretation is far bigger an issue in the mythology of atheists than in the real world. [...]

Say it until you're blue in your smug, self-satisfied face - that doesn't make it true. You may even be stupid/ill-informed/isolated from reality enough to believe it, but people who actually have had contact with multiple brands of christianity know that to be horse-sh*t.

Sure - the differences between denominations and interpretations of christianity are becoming less and less significant, but that's only because religion is becoming less and less relevant in civilized society. With some luck - soon it will be nothing more than a wacky hobby for old people and then no one will give a sh*t about the particularities of it.

Is the objection that we misunderstand Christians, or that we would join up if we understood?

The second is certainly not the case for me. I don't care what truth it has to it. It just so happens that it's clearly nonsense.

(October 24, 2015 at 1:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Just stop.  The differences are wide and important...to say that they aren't is to say that the message of salvation and the means of salvation and any differences any two sects have on that count are unimportant.  It trivializes the entire affair, and anyone who cares to delve into the issue will realize that you're bullshitting them the minute they hit the google button. 

It's clearly a severe enough problem for christians to have been killing each other the world over for their differing interpretations from the very moment we have a history of the cult, and up to the present day.  In your case, perhaps not...but have you ever wondered -why- "christianity" put on a monolith given it's long history of predation and oppression on the basis of doctrine and schism?

Because the numbers weren't looking good.  It became clear, in the past few decades, that they would have to fly the same banner if they wished to hold onto the social purchase they'd individually built, but which they had all been collectively eroding with their constant bickering and bigotry.

I've heard the myth repeated as if it were a religious mantra. But not once has it been substantiated. In your case, it's flat-out misunderstood. How can I simplify the claim so you can understand it? Let me try.

That there are apparent wide and important differences is not being denied. What is being denied is that these are differences of core doctrine. Rather they are differences in peripheral doctrine or practice. 

That some like to worship God with ethnic instruments and others do so with electric guitars might appear to be a wide and important difference, but it's merely one of peripheral doctrine or practice. It's not a difference of core doctrine. Even the difference between "God wants us to be poor"-ism and prosperity preaching might appear to be a big difference, but it's not a difference in core doctrine. 

And yes, this applies even to the wars of religion in Europe. For example the Catholic-Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland was not fought over religious doctrine, but over issues like home rule, where the division along sectarian lines was predicated on the fact that most Protestants feared Catholic-majority rule, and thus resisted Irish home rule. 

So what's the upshot? Two things: (a) Differences that appear to be important in terms of cultural behavior or preferences are not significant doctrinally, and (b) a lot of the conflict being pinned to Christianity in particular does not involve Christianity or Christian beliefs but rather cultural and historical associations, of which members who call themselves Catholic or Protestant have no idea what their religion teaches. Not to mention © your whole story about holding onto social purchase is total atheistic fiction for which no independent evidence exists.

So what you're arguing is, in fact, hot air.

Intellectually-serious atheists beware.

(October 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I'm now convinced that Delicate is the one that is ill-informed.

People who accept magical bullshit are not ill-informed.  They are just delusional.

Provide evidence that your godboy came back from the dead or STFU.

One doesn't need more than a sixth grade level of understanding of Christianity to dismiss it. It's holy book includes stories that even a third grader would question. The unreliability of it's holy text brings into question the entire religion, as well as its god.

You apparently chose to skip replying to me, in order to attack what you thought you could deal with. Okay, so I'll address your claims here more directly.

(October 24, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Delicate Wrote: I've heard the myth repeated as if it were a religious mantra. But not once has it been substantiated. In your case, it's flat-out misunderstood. How can I simplify the claim so you can understand it? Let me try.

That there are apparent wide and important differences is not being denied. What is being denied is that these are differences of core doctrine. Rather they are differences in peripheral doctrine or practice. 

That some like to worship God with ethnic instruments and others do so with electric guitars might appear to be a wide and important difference, but it's merely one of peripheral doctrine or practice. It's not a difference of core doctrine. Even the difference between "God wants us to be poor"-ism and prosperity preaching might appear to be a big difference, but it's not a difference in core doctrine. 

I happen to agree with you about this. There's just one problem...I'm pretty sure no one here has ever brought up the issue of electric guitars versus other means of worship, nor cared a whit about small details of doctrine on that level.

If you could provide an example of when we ignored a core doctrine in favor of a peripheral doctrine, as you claim, I'd appreciate some context. Right now it looks like a strawman, a distraction from addressing our real claims that I have watched you ignore time and again, while blaming us for doing the same.

(October 24, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Delicate Wrote: And yes, this applies even to the wars of religion in Europe. For example the Catholic-Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland was not fought over religious doctrine, but over issues like home rule, where the division along sectarian lines was predicated on the fact that most Protestants feared Catholic-majority rule, and thus resisted Irish home rule. 

I agree with you about this, as well. In fact, I wrote a whole paper in college, for one of my senior history courses (my Minor was in History, focusing on medieval and ancient warfare tactics and technologies) about how even the Crusades could be shown to be over economic issues, largely to do with which group had control of lands that were vital to extracting taxes for "protecting" critical trade routes in that area, which just happened to have dozens of holy shrines along the route for the average religious traveler to $ight$ee as they went.

On the other hand, my paper also pointed out that even though the motives of the Key Players™ in the religious warfare games were obviously motivated by factors other than religion, the foot-soldiers in those wars would not have been possible without a striking difference in religion that marked "us" as Righteous Ones, while "the enemy" were demonic, inhuman things worthy of destruction. So to speak.

And it's also clear that some wars, even if they have economic motives behind some of the key players, are almost entirely over those sorts of "they are the Enemy" religious conflicts. Examples would include the extermination of the French Hugenots, the expulsion of my Catholic Cajun ancestors from Acadie (Nova Scotia), and a list of wars I refer to as "the Heresy Genocides", such as the actions against the Arianists, the Gnostics, the Ebionites, the Marcionists, the Cathars, and the Docetists (wiped out in the more-well-known Albigensian Crusade)... and many more.

Before you make claims like the one you just made, educate yourself about history a little bit more. History is usually more complex than we initially think it is, humans being what we are, and your claim that just because there are motivations for religious wars other than the religion itself it must mean that we can ignore the religion as a driving factor strikes me as either intensely naive or intentionally deceptive. Saying that because the South had many economic and philosophical differences with the federalist North which had little to do with slavery, and that those reasons were probably more powerful in motivating the South to go to war than any form of religious ideology in the minds of the Senators who declared secession and war, is to ignore that maintaining the system of slavery and white supremacy was foremost in the minds of almost anyone in the South who put his hands on a rifle or a cannon. I consider their beliefs (and the deaths of those who died) to be tragic, as I feel about those who accept religious explanations for "why we really really need to go to war, man" handed down to the cannon fodder infantryman over the millenia. To deny the religious motivations of the foot soldiers in any case where religion-driven culture leads people into these battles is to try to wipe history clean of every man, woman, and child who has had a piece of metal run through them by a person with the name of God on his lips.

(October 24, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Delicate Wrote: So what's the upshot? Two things: (a) Differences that appear to be important in terms of cultural behavior or preferences are not significant doctrinally, and (b) a lot of the conflict being pinned to Christianity in particular does not involve Christianity or Christian beliefs but rather cultural and historical associations, of which members who call themselves Catholic or Protestant have no idea what their religion teaches. Not to mention © your whole story about holding onto social purchase is total atheistic fiction for which no independent evidence exists.

So what you're arguing is, in fact, hot air.

Intellectually-serious atheists beware.

As I've written elsewhere, we are less concerned with what your core doctrines are claimed to be than we are with "where the rubber meets the road" (or more accurately, where the metal meets the flesh) contact-point between our lives and the cult-ure of Christian society. Also, it tells me that you either missed what I wrote at the end of the previous page, or else you're deliberately ignoring what I cautioned you about.

(October 24, 2015 at 1:29 pm)Delicate Wrote: Like I said elsewhere, this whole bugaboo of interpretation is far bigger an issue in the mythology of atheists than in the real world. In the real world, the vast majority of Christians agree on all the core doctrines. If there's any diversity, it's because of peripheral interpretive differences or cultural differences. 

It's just not as severe a problem in the real world as atheists imagine it to be.

But your basis for rejecting Christianity is very interesting. When you say you can't be completely devoted to him, do you mean you literally cannot, as in it's impossible, or do you mean you just don't want to be?

And yet there have been wars over these interpretations, despite everyone agreeing on core concepts like Jesus being the Way, the Truth, and the Life (Light?). That seems pretty severe.

I suppose I could devote myself if I ignored all the stuff I don't like, but there's a pretty good bit to dislike. Killing an innocent person or animal someone how makes up for someone doing bad deeds. Slavery is fine, within certain limits, but homosexuality is a death sentence. The idea of someone ruling over my life at all is pretty weird for a guy who grew up in a country that's supposed to be a representative republic. Despite so many christians living here. The person in charge of my country doesn't rule me. He's supposed to be working for me, and every other tax paying citizen.

The book has outdated belief systems, and skewed morals. I'm supposed to dedicate my life to someone that I'm supposed to believe in based on faith, because of what he's going to do to me if I don't. I can understand why I hear christianity is dying, because it's really hard to sell that to someone who isn't in a vulnerable position.

(October 24, 2015 at 4:42 pm)Chad32 Wrote: And yet there have been wars over these interpretations, despite everyone agreeing on core concepts like Jesus being the Way, the Truth, and the Life (Light?). That seems pretty severe.

I suppose I could devote myself if I ignored all the stuff I don't like, but there's a pretty good bit to dislike. Killing an innocent person or animal someone how makes up for someone doing bad deeds. Slavery is fine, within certain limits, but homosexuality is a death sentence. The idea of someone ruling over my life at all is pretty weird for a guy who grew up in a country that's supposed to be a representative republic. Despite so many christians living here. The person in charge of my country doesn't rule me. He's supposed to be working for me, and every other tax paying citizen.

The book has outdated belief systems, and skewed morals. I'm supposed to dedicate my life to someone that I'm supposed to believe in based on faith, because of what he's going to do to me if I don't. I can understand why I hear christianity is dying, because it's really hard to sell that to someone who isn't in a vulnerable position.

QFT. And to add, "..nerable position, or has never learned how to Google."