Stump the Christian?

[Cato]

Here is a link to Dawkins' entire speech that the Wiki quote poorly referenced:
https://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2012/...ally-2012/

For those interested I think you'll find Dawkins' comments a bit different than previously characterized, particularly this bit:

We need intelligent design. We need to intelligently design our morals, our ethics, our politics, our society. We need to intelligently design the way we run our lives, not look back to scrolls — I was going to say ancient scrolls, they’re not even very ancient, about 800 BC the book of Genesis was written. I am often accused of expressing contempt and despising religious people. I don’t despise religious people; I despise what they stand for. I like to quote the British journalist Johann Hari who said, “I have so much respect for you that I cannot respect your ridiculous ideas.”

Here is the 'mocking' comment with a bit more context:

By the way, when we went on to ask a specific question of these only 54 percent: “What do you do when you’re faced with a moral dilemma? Where do you turn?” Only 10 percent turned to their religion when trying to solve their moral question. Only 10 percent. The majority of them said, “I turn to my innate sense of goodness” and the next most popular answer was “I turn to advice from relatives and friends”.


So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?” Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!
Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits.

Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.

So when somebody makes a claim that transubstantiation is real, but offers no support for the claim, why shouldn't it be mocked? It's patently ridiculous. The defense given is that I should ignore it for the sake of entertaining the entire worldview, which despite being burdened with absurdities, somehow becomes reasonable from a broad perspective. What Dawkins understands, that is being tiptoed around here, is that people that have no problem believing they're eating a piece of Jesus every weekend cannot be expected to be persuaded through rational debate. You have said as much yourself in that some may reevaluate specific points, but should never be expected to give up the ghost.

[robvalue]

@Nestor: By "truth" I meant the truth of which is the correct religion. Other things we are taught usually have justification behind them. It's no coincidence that maths, for example, is the same everywhere. Of course anyone could be taught any bunch of nonsense, sure. But religion is very different to most forms of "truth" in that they require just believing in them despite there being no evidence. I don't think that's particularly true of very much else. Normally we can be given at least some demonstration of why we should believe it, and if it is true it will stand up to investigation. Religion is just not to be investigated!

But it is true that if you control people's environments, you can control what they think, to a large degree. The more insular the environment, the more this is the case.

[Mudhammam]

@Nestor: By "truth" I meant the truth of which is the correct religion. Other things we are taught usually have justification behind them. It's no coincidence that maths, for example, is the same everywhere. Of course anyone could be taught any bunch of nonsense, sure. But religion is very different to most forms of "truth" in that they require just believing in them despite there being no evidence. I don't think that's particularly true of very much else. Normally we can be given at least some demonstration of why we should believe it, and if it is true it will stand up to investigation. Religion is just not to be investigated!

But it is true that if you control people's environments, you can control what they think, to a large degree. The more insular the environment, the more this is the case.

I see. But I'm not sure I would want to argue---and maybe this isn't what you meant---that something is false because a person's belief in it largely depends on accidental circumstances like the time and place they are born. Otherwise it seems like just about every point of view that is not tautological (there is some debate whether math is or isn't) can be dismissed as contingent on facts of happenstance.

[robvalue]

Oh no, of course not. But here with religion we have competing versions of "truth" and they can't both be right. At least one of them is wrong. (Arguments which try and fudge the issue and say the are both right are really poor in my opinion and reduce all religions to drivel.)

So I phrased it rather badly, what I should have said is what people claim is the truth regarding religion is largely dependent on where they are born. This suggests they are either answering different questions (seperate gods of exaggerated power) or they are both wrong. Unless of course, one side can show why they are actually right, which they cannot.

Also, if there were more than one "valid answer" you'd expect some sort of spread, not this geographical grouping.

It does amaze me this doesn't bother theists more.

Of course, by some cosmic coincidence, it could somehow turn out that one of the religions is "right". But even if that is the case, the evidence is not there to support such a conclusion.

[SteveII]

Here is a link to Dawkins' entire speech that the Wiki quote poorly referenced:
https://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2012/...ally-2012/

For those interested I think you'll find Dawkins' comments a bit different than previously characterized, particularly this bit:

We need intelligent design. We need to intelligently design our morals, our ethics, our politics, our society. We need to intelligently design the way we run our lives, not look back to scrolls — I was going to say ancient scrolls, they’re not even very ancient, about 800 BC the book of Genesis was written. I am often accused of expressing contempt and despising religious people. I don’t despise religious people; I despise what they stand for. I like to quote the British journalist Johann Hari who said, “I have so much respect for you that I cannot respect your ridiculous ideas.”

Here is the 'mocking' comment with a bit more context:

By the way, when we went on to ask a specific question of these only 54 percent: “What do you do when you’re faced with a moral dilemma? Where do you turn?” Only 10 percent turned to their religion when trying to solve their moral question. Only 10 percent. The majority of them said, “I turn to my innate sense of goodness” and the next most popular answer was “I turn to advice from relatives and friends”.


So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?” Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!
Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits.

Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.

So when somebody makes a claim that transubstantiation is real, but offers no support for the claim, why shouldn't it be mocked? It's patently ridiculous. The defense given is that I should ignore it for the sake of entertaining the entire worldview, which despite being burdened with absurdities, somehow becomes reasonable from a broad perspective. What Dawkins understands, that is being tiptoed around here, is that people that have no problem believing they're eating a piece of Jesus every weekend cannot be expected to be persuaded through rational debate. You have said as much yourself in that some may reevaluate specific points, but should never be expected to give up the ghost.

The context doesn't change my point much. The final sentence you pasted still calls for "ridiculed with contempt" "if necessary. What does that mean? Is there a line where things like transubstantiation crosses but belief in God or heaven does not so no ridicule required or is everything to be ridiculed because it starts with the absurd notion that God exists? 

BTW, I don't believe the Catholic church's teaching on that either (which was internally developed and not from the Bible). It is obviously symbolic. 

[Cato]

The context doesn't change my point much. The final sentence you pasted still calls for "ridiculed with contempt" "if necessary. What does that mean? Is there a line where things like transubstantiation crosses but belief in God or heaven does not so no ridicule required or is everything to be ridiculed because it starts with the absurd notion that God exists? 

BTW, I don't believe the Catholic church's teaching on that either (which was internally developed and not from the Bible). It is obviously symbolic. 

The transubstantiation bit is an example of an absurdity and was used because it was specifically addressed in the Dawkins' speech that you referenced. I am well aware that some non-Catholics have a symbolic communion ritual, but the Catholic idea of transubstantiation is not symbolic.

I don't think you'll find a consensus on what constitutes an absurdity, but I'm happy to share my opinion. It's the unsubstantiated statement of fact that bothers me the most. This also applies to non-religious claims such as homeopathy, astrology, psychokinesis, clairvoyance and the like. The 'absurd' label is certainly subjective, but for me has to do with how far from reality the claim is and how the unsubstantiated fact is being deployed.

I would not consider a belief in a deist god an absurdity. I don't agree with the conclusion since I'm willing to suspend judgement understanding the absolute absence of any information regarding what caused the Big Bang, but I don't think it merits much argument. On the other hand, believing in the Genesis account as it is stated is absurd. Telling me the Earth is only 6000 years old is also absurd. Denying evolution because it conflicts with The Bible is absurd. Believing in a global deluge is absurd. Believing that God sent hurricanes to punish a geographic location for its tolerance of homosexuals is absurd.

I don't agree with the idea of heaven or everlasting life because there is nothing but wishful thinking to support the claim, but I generally don't have an issue with people that believe this if it provides some solace. When the idea of hell is piggybacked to this as the ultimate carrot and stick method of influencing behavior I'll get a little more animated. This is particularly so when believers attempt to use the power of the state to enforce my adherence to ancient dicta with no compelling secular argument.

[abaris]

The final sentence you pasted still calls for "ridiculed with contempt" "if necessary. What does that mean?

It means that someone believing in the earth being 6 to 10.000 years old and a mud golem paired with a rib of his own created the whole human species, isn't fit to hold any kind of public office. At least that's how I understand and support it.

People like that are a clear and present danger for society. Not if they keep to their own private circle. But if they run for office, and America is a good place for that, they are a hazard.

[dyresand]

The problem with a after life....

Remembering loose ends not finished and being like fuck i could have done this or that over.

[Esquilax]

The education may very well be a better understanding of the Christian doctrine you might be trying to poke a hole in. Like I said, there are no new objections that haven't been heard, dissected and answered by Christian apologists.

Oh, I know. Do you know why I'm an atheist? Because I looked at the answers and justifications that religious apologists of all stripes used, and their misrepresentations, fallacies, and downright dishonesty drove me to the other side. I'm counting on christians going to their best sources, because the paucity of real evidence, and the twisting, self serving doublespeak employed there, is one of the better arguments for atheism there is.

You, as an atheist, might not think the answers are sufficient, but to someone who already believes in God, such answers carry more weight than for those who start from the assumption there is no god.

Who's making an assumption? My whole epistemological model is based around the elimination of assumptions; that has little to do with my atheism, that is a consequence of the way I view epistemology, but I don't make any such assumption when approaching an argument. I reject the need for such an assumption. It just so happens that one making a fair, unbiased and comprehensive view of the evidence will naturally reach the conclusion that one does not need to accept any god claims based on what is available.

Some atheist think that Christianity is utterly absurd. If someone starts from a position of naturalism and materialism

Nope, I don't do that either. Atheism is not naturalism or materialism, for one; as I discussed in another thread today, my wife is an atheist like me, but she believes in ghosts.

or was hurt by someone who claimed to be religious,

C'mon, there's no need to make scummy intimations about our motives, now. I don't make a habit of going around asserting that religious people were just hurt by people claiming to be atheists, nor do I assert that christians were just hurt by, say, buddhists; there's no reason to go there, honestly.

and looks no further than a cursory glance at and what other atheist say about Christianity, that person will have a vastly different perspective than someone who is significantly more familiar with the 1000 different components of Christianity and how they work together into a coherent worldview.

You're making a whole lot of assumptions, here. I'm kinda curious as to why that is; why is it so important to you to assume that we just haven't been exposed to True Christianity, and that's why we reject it? Do you have any understanding of how many of us are former christians ourselves, or from christian families?

Now me, I'm surrounded by christians. Each and every one of my in-laws, which I definitely consider to be family, are christian. My wife is an ex-christian. I've dated christians before I got married. Many of us live in a majority christian country... this idea that we've only got a view of christianity based on what other atheists say simply does not mesh with the facts. Hell, it doesn't even mesh with the forum we're on right now, where christians can freely come and express their ideas. Just because our views on the religion don't match the specific version you believe, doesn't mean they're ill informed views coming from other atheists; in all likelihood they just came from another sort of christian to you. Why would we ever privilege your idea of christianity over theirs?

I am speaking from personal experience, if you challenge a thoughtful Christian (with at least a fairly firm Christian worldview) it will not shake him/her--rather prompt further investigation which may alter a particular view but not shake the core beliefs. 

Yeah, and I still don't think that's a bad thing. I want people to know more, not automatically agree with me. I can be wrong too; the acquisition of knowledge is the only way to cure that, and if something I've said prompts a christian to learn a new thing and come to me with it, and it's not fallacious or otherwise incorrect, guess what I'll do?

I'll change my mind, too!

[SteveII]

The final sentence you pasted still calls for "ridiculed with contempt" "if necessary. What does that mean?

It means that someone believing in the earth being 6 to 10.000 years old and a mud golem paired with a rib of his own created the whole human species, isn't fit to hold any kind of public office. At least that's how I understand and support it.

People like that are a clear and present danger for society. Not if they keep to their own private circle. But if they run for office, and America is a good place for that, they are a hazard.

So...for the past 230 years where Christians have held the majority of public offices in the US, they were a clear and present danger? In what specific way has all those collective years of believing in God been a hazard or some other detriment to our country over our entire history?

Then move to the individual politician. What benefit would a non-christian be over a Christian?