What is wrong with theistic beliefs?

[Whateverist]

Okay lets close the polls.  The results were off because the choices were felt to be a bad fit by many of us.  Any how the results at this time, before revealing the reason for the set up, are:

Delusional = 6

Imaginary = 2

Crazy = 0

Other = 3

So I noticed recently that TackAttack was hanging around and that got me looking to see if he'd started any new threads.  That is how I noticed this poll which he conducted back in 2011:   tack attack's poll   Now he allowed people to choose more than one category as I often do but I wanted to pin it down more.  Boy, no one appreciated that I don't think.  Anyhow, his results then (bearing in mind some people chose multiple options and the poll ran 2 days which was similar):


Delusional = 15

Imaginary = 6

Crazy = 4

Other = 12



From most to least popular both poll's results were the same:

1- Delusional

2- Other

3- Imaginary

4 - Crazy


The tougher part would be to interpret in which era the attitudes toward theists were harshest.  To my way of thinking you almost have to ditch the "Other" category since whereas the three categories TackAttack had come up with were descriptive of mind state, in all the cases I can recall "Other" was used to provide a cause instead.  A more useful fourth category might have been "Normal Range".  Perhaps that is what those who chose "Other" had in mind was to say there was nothing deranged about their thinking, they were merely responding to different challenges than some who don't grow up in religious homes.

For the other three categories I think "Crazy" is the harshest, "Delusional" would be second and "Imaginary" would be the closest to normal.  With "Delusional" you are persistently seeing as real something which may not even be there at all.  With "Imaginary" you at least are acknowledging that they are perceiving something that is there, but just misinterpreting what that is.

Results?  Inconclusive I'd say.  I really don't know whether things have gotten better, worse or remained the same.  It feels different because the individual have changed.  I'm inclined toward "remained the same".  I'd be interested in how you think the climate here has changed toward theists from when you first joined our forum if you're willing to say.  Don't worry, no poll this time.

[The Grand Nudger]

Seems about the same since I joined, though I've become orders of magnitude harsher, lol.

[Aliza]

Theism isn't the root of all the worlds problems.  Theism only -amplifies- the root of all of our problems.  

Even the example you presented..is problematic.  If the reason that all people deserve equal rights is that a magic book says so...that argument falls just as magic book falls.  Those who assert as much have doomed civil rights to failure.

Look around you, the magic book folks have decided that civil rights aren't all that important after all.  MAGA jesus says bow to the king.

It's not about the magic book.

People only follow the parts of the magic book that they like. We can take a stroll through leviticus and see for ourselves that the majority of Christians eat or condone the consumption of bacon and shellfish. The magic book doesn't stop them from doing what they actually want. It only offers them the justification to do it.

So if you can convince the followers of the magic book that equal rights is the just thing for everyone, then they'll chew on that for a little... decide if it makes sense to them or not independent of whatever the magic book says. If they decide that equal rights for all makes sense, then they'll find support to validate their views in the magic book. If they can't find support, they'll reinterpret things or cherry pick the offending part of the bible into obscurity.

Then the children see that the parents faced a moral dilemma and they responded by reinterpreting the magic book, and they themselves will have justification to reinterpret it as needed when they become adults. If this wasn't happening, then we'd have the exact same christianity that we had 2,000 years ago. We don't even have the same Christianity that we had 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago.

The end result is the same regardless of how a person justifies it; they're choosing the path they want to take independent of the magic book.

[The Grand Nudger]

Theism isn't the root of all the worlds problems.  Theism only -amplifies- the root of all of our problems.  

Even the example you presented..is problematic.  If the reason that all people deserve equal rights is that a magic book says so...that argument falls just as magic book falls.  Those who assert as much have doomed civil rights to failure.

Look around you, the magic book folks have decided that civil rights aren't all that important after all.  MAGA jesus says bow to the king.

It's not about the magic book.

It is, look..above, at your own example.

People only follow the parts of the magic book that they like. We can take a stroll through leviticus and see for ourselves that the majority of Christians eat or condone the consumption of bacon and shellfish. The magic book doesn't stop them from doing what they actually want. It only offers them the justification to do it.

So if you can convince the followers of the magic book that equal rights is the just thing for everyone, then they'll chew on that for a little... decide if it makes sense to them or not independent of whatever the magic book says. If they decide that equal rights for all makes sense, then they'll find support to validate their views in the magic book. If they can't find support, they'll reinterpret things or cherry pick the offending part of the bible into obscurity.

Then the children see that the parents faced a moral dilemma and they responded by reinterpreting the magic book, and they themselves will have justification to reinterpret it as needed when they become adults. If this wasn't happening, then we'd have the exact same christianity that we had 2,000 years ago. We don't even have the same Christianity that we had 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago.

The end result is the same regardless of how a person justifies it; they're choosing the path they want to take independent of the magic book.

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.

[Whateverist]

Seems about the same since I joined, though I've become orders of magnitude harsher, lol.

I don't know about that.  Plus you're pretty damned accurate in most things.  Remember your first avatar?  What kind of biter was that?  I think we started within days of each other.  A twofer for Satan's side.

[Aliza]

It's not about the magic book.

It is, look..above, at your own example.

People only follow the parts of the magic book that they like. We can take a stroll through leviticus and see for ourselves that the majority of Christians eat or condone the consumption of bacon and shellfish. The magic book doesn't stop them from doing what they actually want. It only offers them the justification to do it.

So if you can convince the followers of the magic book that equal rights is the just thing for everyone, then they'll chew on that for a little... decide if it makes sense to them or not independent of whatever the magic book says. If they decide that equal rights for all makes sense, then they'll find support to validate their views in the magic book. If they can't find support, they'll reinterpret things or cherry pick the offending part of the bible into obscurity.

Then the children see that the parents faced a moral dilemma and they responded by reinterpreting the magic book, and they themselves will have justification to reinterpret it as needed when they become adults. If this wasn't happening, then we'd have the exact same christianity that we had 2,000 years ago. We don't even have the same Christianity that we had 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago.

The end result is the same regardless of how a person justifies it; they're choosing the path they want to take independent of the magic book.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

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.  

That's an impressive and consequential notion.

(though I'd be a little bit more skeptical that the theists hate actually was independent of the magic book - magic books routinely assert hateful things..they're not exactly coming up with their shit whole cloth.)

[Whateverist]

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.

---

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.

[Aliza]

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.

I do agree with that, but I think that kind of social pressure to conform is not a result of theism, per say. I think it's a result of a toxic culture, and yes, theism can most definitely produce toxic cultures. The magic book can be a very dangerous thing when coupled with fear and intimidation.

I just think that even if you see a correlation between theism and douchebags, theism is not the root cause of someone being a douche. -But their circumstances may expose them to more factors that do make them douches.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, theism as amplifier, not cause.  People will be people..part of what we are just isn't that nice.  When we begin to imagine that the nasty bits of ourselves are the commands of the emperor of creation shit starts to go sideways real fast.

A believing douche has warrant that a standard douche simply doesn't. I'm a standard douche, for example....lol. One of the things standing between me and doing the sorts of things a believing douche gets up to is that I realize that my douchery is my own, these are my own opinions - not the mandate of heaven.