RE: What is wrong with theistic beliefs?
November 17, 2018 at 5:56 pm
(This post was last modified: November 17, 2018 at 5:59 pm by Whateverist.)
(November 17, 2018 at 5:51 pm)Aliza Wrote:(November 17, 2018 at 5:23 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: It is, look..above, at your own example.
Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that an argument which depends on what a magic book says can be no more credible than the magic book. This was an example of magic book believers trying to do a -good- thing, and even that got screwed.
Magic books, or theistic beliefs in general, give the believer all the reason they require to do some shitty thing, but provide no credible reason to do any good thing. Theism is a drain swirling phenomena. The god of theism, no more than a puppet.
I guess my point is that if the believers in question were going to do something shitty, it was independent of what the book said. They ultimately do what they want to do, whether that's a good thing or a shitty thing. If the theist makes an argument based on the book, it's just a facade. The book is the curtain they hide behind.
If the atheist and the theist agree on the outcome, then we don't have a problem. If we both agree that civil rights for all is the just thing to do and you don't like my reasoning for agreeing with you, then we have a totally different problem; that's a completely different value system that should be addressed separately from the point I'm trying to make now.
If the atheist and the theist disagree on the outcome, then I say a more appropriate tactic for persuading the theist is not to attack the book because the book is not the cause, and doing so polarizes the theist against you. "People of all races seem to be able to earn medical degrees, so how can you say that one race is inherently 'better' than the other race?" Keep chipping away at that and if you successfully persuade them, then they'll change their understanding of the book to match what they've decided.
But I think you'd agree that the misuse of the 'magic' book makes it a dangerous thing in groups which are very reluctant to fall out of step. On a xtian site I'm on there is one brilliant linguist who though she entirely embraces evolution would never speak in favor of it in her church because of her fear of estrangement from the group. In her mind, she is with them for the long haul and hopes more will see the light. But if even those with eyes to see won't speak up, that group is pretty susceptible to manipulation. Exhibit A: Donald Trump.
(November 17, 2018 at 5:56 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Oh, or sure. Haters gotta hate. The only difference between a theistic hater and any other hater is that the theistic hater believes that his hate is sanctioned by the lord of the cosmos.
Or at least won't share her mashed taters with her at the after service dinner if she calls the hater out.