Barriers to atheist - theist dialogue

[Angrboda]

3) Theists discussing "atheism" as though it were a homogenous mass

Atheists ragging on a specific theism in response to generic atheism.

Fascinating. So we can't rag on "theism in general," nor are we allowed to rag on a specific theism. That's quite the protection racket you've got there.

[fr0d0]

Specific theism in response to generic atheism. Apples to oranges. Xtianity does this but atheism doesn't. Do you see? Secular humanism vs Xtianity or Atheism vs Theism. Too many times people mismatch.

[Anymouse]

2) Atheists discussing "religion" as though it were a homogenous mass

Religion is a homogeneous mass. All religions, regardless of the window dressing of their particular beliefs (Islam, Judaism, various forms of Christianity) all ultimately believe in the same thing: that there are instances/beings that are "supernatural."

Atheism says nothing about what a person believes, only that such a person does not believe (any) theistic claims about the supernatural. [A rational atheist, if presented with incontrovertible proof of a theistic claim would presumably accept it, but if it is buttressed with evidence or observation, it is no longer supernatural, it is science.]

As for going after specific religions, the overwhelming majority of people around here are Lutherans. Countering the claims of Islam or Catholicism doesn't accomplish much where I live.

The difficult part is showing the Lutheran that his claims have no more merit than a Catholic's or a Muslim's, at least as regards what is observably true about our world and universe.

None of them really seem to understand that observation and evidence apply to all things (not just all things but their own pet belief system).

They use technology, and yet see no evidence for computers or hydroelectric plants in the Bible. They ascribe surgical success to God (not to the skill of a surgeon). They ascribe morality to a book, while not understanding that they must have an innate moral system to determine if that book is a moral guide.

All religions do this. They are thus a homogeneous mass by definition.

[Gabriel Syme]

Hi everyone,

Some great points have been raised so far, I will definitely return later on to discuss more, (have been typing on my lunchbreak), but for now I will field this from cato123:

You invoked Islamic terror and the Westboro Baptists as examples of 'bad' religion. I'm curious. Why did you not mention the prohibition of contraceptives in Africa nor the relocation of pedophilic preists in your examples of 'bad' religion.

Hi Cato123,

Condoms in Africa

I did not include this because the catholic position is fully supported by the empirical evidence, as has been openly recognised by global public health experts, such as Dr Edward Green, of various universities (including Harvard).

See here:

Condoms, HIV-AIDS and Africa - The Pope Was Right

By Edward C. Green
Sunday, March 29, 2009

When Pope Benedict XVI commented this month that condom distribution isn't helping, and may be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, he set off a firestorm of protest. Most non-Catholic commentary has been highly critical of the pope. A cartoon in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reprinted in The Post, showed the pope somewhat ghoulishly praising a throng of sick and dying Africans: "Blessed are the sick, for they have not used condoms."

Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02825.html

The reason most people are so shockingly ignorant about HIV-Condoms-Africa is because they get their information from celebrities and the media (who often have an anti-Catholic agenda to push) - not from public health experts.

Condoms are not 100% efficient at preventing STD transmission (or unwanted pregnancy), therefore, using condoms will always result in at least some level of STD transmission.

The Catholic Church instead advocates that sex should only be enjoyed inside committed, exclusive relationships. Ie a policy of monogamy and abistinence. This is 100% effective at preventing STD transmission.

Essentially, on one side of the argument you have:

- The Catholic Church
- The empirical evidence
- University level public health experts

And on the other:

- Hateful people who despise the Catholic Church
- Liars who despise the Catholic Church
- Gullible people who have been brainwashed by the secular media

I know which side of the argument has most credibility.

Many people of course, (seemingly including you), will have never heard of experts like Dr Edward Green, and will not realise the evidence agrees with the Catholic view. (thats not a coincidence, by the way, its because the Church policies are based on reality).

And why have they not heard of Him / the evidence? Purely because the media - their only source of information, which they accept unthinkingly - has chosen not to tell them, in favour of spoonfeeding them agenda-ridden nonsense.

Paedophile priests

(It would be more correct to say "ephebrophile priests", as most victims were sexually mature teenage boys, not "children").

Despite these being very serious crimes, I did not include this as failure to deal properly with abuse is not motivated by religion. It is motivated by any or all of: cowardice, cynicism, fear or arrogance.

Failure to deal properly with abuse has not been a problem limited to the Catholic Church. Currently in the UK, there are ongoing abuse scandals - showing that abuse was allowed to go on unchecked - among the following:

- The BBC - various celebrity presents abused kids on BBC premesis for deaces, (nearly half a century), while the British public adored them and they had celebrity and honours (OBEs etc) heaped upon them by the British establshment. it was an open secret that these men were predators, for years, but no-one ever did anything about it until now.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/cr...655523.ece

- HMP institutions & hospitals - prison and hospital authorities also failed to act, meaning BBC celebrities visiting these places were able to abuse people unchecked on these premesis too

- Police + Social workers in Rochdale (north of england) knowingly allowed gangs of asian men to groom and rape underage white girls repeatedly, for 10 years (2002 - 2012), because they were frightened to be called "racists" if they were seen to enforce the law.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/c...o-act.html

So, you see, failure to deal properly with abuse is - sadly - an exceptionally common probloem, for a variety of reasons.

It is no more an inherent problem of religion, than it is with public tv/radio broadcasters or with police forces.

Hope this helps
Cheers
GS

[Zone]

(It should be noted that mainstream Christians are not bible literalists)

I think if you're going to believe in it then you should be literal about it, the supernatural events and miracles described either happened and they will be a real part of the universe or they didn't. Sure you can be mataphorical about say Genesis, Noahs Ark and Jonah inside a whale. But then you also have Moses turning a staff into a snake and there is a talking donkey in there as well (or God speaking through the donkey). I don't see why that ought to be metaphorical if there is actual real magic in the world.

[Violet]

3) Theists discussing "atheism" as though it were a homogenous mass

When atheists treat it as though it is, declaring it homogenous is well-deserved.

[Minimalist]

The Catholic Church instead advocates that sex should only be enjoyed inside committed, exclusive relationships. Ie a policy of monogamy and abistinence. This is 100% effective at preventing STD transmission.

Or, failing that, between priests and altar boys.

[downbeatplumb]

One barrier to a proper dialogue is the lack of a generally accepted definition of what god is let alone what christianity or islam actually is.

This lack of definition allows the goal posts of the discussion to be shuffled back and forth.

[Confused Ape]

Religion is a homogeneous mass. All religions, regardless of the window dressing of their particular beliefs (Islam, Judaism, various forms of Christianity) all ultimately believe in the same thing: that there are instances/beings that are "supernatural."

These aren't the only religions in the world and, in some of them, a belief in deities is optional.

Atheism And Devotion In Buddhism

Atheism in Hinduism

Even some pagans can be atheists.

Is There a Pagan Atheism? Examples of Atheism in Paganism

[Anymouse]

Condoms are not 100% efficient at preventing STD transmission (or unwanted pregnancy), therefore, using condoms will always result in at least some level of STD transmission.

Does the Pope belong to the NRA? They make the same argument about gun crime. (Registration will not prevent all gun crime, so having it will always result in at least some gun crime, so we should have no registration. Though thirty years ago the NRA was plumping for universal registration. Like the religious, they interpret things to mean exactly what they say they mean, until they say they mean something else.)

If we cannot reduce all STDs to zero, reducing them by 10, 20, or 90% is a meaningless goal.

It is a good thing we didn't listen to that argument about drinking and driving laws, tobacco use, seat belts, food safety inspections, every advancement in medicine since it was invented, and we shouldn't listen to the Church about such things either.

And since contraceptives are in fact not a bulletproof solution to prevention of pregnancy, why does the church oppose vasectomies and tying tubes, which are? Oh right, it says right there in Matthew: And Jesus spake, saying, "Medical intervention to prevent pregnancy is evil; one shall be cast down into the Lake of Fire forever."

The one professor you cite in your argument (it is always amazing how the religious resort to trying to prove their positions with science, a) because their theology won't do it and b) they fail to realise that the second they can show something with evidence and reason then they no longer need faith and religion as the position becomes a matter of science) is called in science "an outlier."

One opinion which is in opposition to the collected body of science proves nothing. What your professor needs to do is trot out empirical evidence (studies, data, &c). Otherwise, scientists have another name for a shrill voice from the wilderness: a quack.

Yet you use a whole slew of instruments of entirely human ingenuity (physicians and dentists, medications and hospitals, computers, the Internet, electric power, petroleum extraction to produce plastic, radio electronics if you use wireless, &c) and fail to see that no god of any sort is required to create and produce any of those things. Or any thing we have ever created.

The Catholic Church instead advocates that sex should only be enjoyed inside committed, exclusive relationships. Ie a policy of monogamy and abistinence. This is 100% effective at preventing STD transmission.

So why is the Church opposed to committed gay and lesbian monogamous relationships, which also prevent STDs? Because it is written: it is better to be promiscuous with the opposite sex, than it is to be faithful to one person of the same sex.

It is good though that the Church (and its pope) has an apologist to stand up for it. Because all its actions for sixteen hundred years are anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-human. No other organisation in the West has amassed greater wealth, caused greater suffering, and violated human rights than the Church.

By the way, you did not respond to the question of the Colorado lawsuit (to which I gave a link) that the church argued foetuses are not persons to avoid paying out in a wrongful death case. Nor the Indian woman in Ireland.

Avoiding answering tough questions by calling others "liars" does not answer the questions. It shows nothing more than a lack of understanding of the rules of debate.

Some religious people here use this site for quite a different purpose than you apparently are: to learn about atheism (after all, you cannot properly argue with an opponent unless you understand your opponent's position), to learn the weaknesses in their own religious arguments (to improve them), or simply to learn about their own religions (because you always get an unbiased account of any organisation by reading that organisation's own propaganda).

And yet you make such grand statements about the Church and its leaders, all the while an atheist about every other god or goddess ever proposed in the history of humankind. You picked one, presumably for some knowledge or feeling outside its holy book, and decided it was true.

Yet all you seem to be doing here is trotting out the same old tired apologetics for an organisation unwilling to admit its failings, open its finances to inspection, root out its corrupt officials.

When you've something constructive to say, or better yet, when you actually look at the information against the Church and the pope without a presupposition that it is false and its proponents liars, we might then have something to talk about. Until then, you are just behaving as one from Westboro Baptist Church, albeit with a rosary in hand.