(June 8, 2015 at 3:50 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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.
