(August 29, 2015 at 3:18 am)robvalue Wrote: I suppose I am fundamentally anti-theist in that I think theism represents irrational and badly defined thinking. This in itself has a knock-on effect, causing people to be more likely to adopt other irrational beliefs which hamper their ability to make rational decisions about reality. These decisions affect everyone around them, not just themselves.
I think it's a "bad idea", but that doesn't mean I'm advocating doing anything about it, except promoting critical thinking.
I'm much more concerned with how religious dogma directly causes tangible harm.
I agree with this. I would take it one little step further, I am anti dogma, anti-blind faith statements, and anti statements of belief that not only don't have any observational support but also counter observation. I am going out on a limb here and trashing the definitions of "faith" and "belief". although the wiki says different, I think all beliefs and faiths should have some supporting observation before they are weighted as more or less valid. I also would toss philosophy in there, they think critically, write real pretty, and kick out as much if not more bs then religion.
I also would encourage critical thinking by using cherry picking and apoplectics. Using them as a weapon against religion really doesn't help people think. They seem to mean "shut up and do what your told" and "screw what you leaned today, great grandpa's idea he formed in 18 ought 92 is as good as it gets." is bs. It may take a little longer but at least it gets them thinking and the short term effect could be splintering larger sects to make a religion less powerful.
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity