The Intellectual Crudity of Non-Theist Apologists

[_Ren]

I am talking about skepticism as it relates to dogma. Dogma authoritatively lays down doctrine, skepticism questions the validity or "truthiness" of said doctrine.

Ahh - ok. So you aren't concentrating on definition 3 then?
...if not, my challenge stands. Get back to me when you have watched the video...

And this forum is a representation of what "most" people believe "often"?

I didn't use the word 'most'. I only used the word 'often'.

I live in a country where about half of its occupants believe Jesus will be returning, wielding his magic powers, sometime in their lifetime

I understand that your local situation is considerably different than - say - mine.
This doesn't relieve you of your responsibility to place the blame where it is due.

I'm worried about those people more than I am worried about theists like Jersey Girl, who seem more than happy to separate belief in God from religious dogma.

Do you believe you are making a point different to the one I was making...?
EDIT: Oh also, you provided a list of definitions for 'Dogma'. Can you indicate which one you are working with...

If half of our country believed in Jersey Girl's form of theism (sorry Jersey Girl, just using you as an example) the United States would be a lot better off, and people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens might have to find something else to write about.

Have you considered whether you are part of the solution, or part of the problem?
We don't have such religious contention over here in this part of world. And we didn't achieve that state of affairs by officially declaring religion - nor theism - 'silly' or 'dangerous'.

Are you saying that it's just as stupid to believe in religion, as it would be to reject religion and yet still believe in God?

Yes, I'll say that.

Well, I tend to try and veer away from thinking so much of my own opinion, as to think so lowly of others based only on disagreement.
I'm as sure as I can be that there is no God. But I've never actively wanted to think like you appear to...

I'm not hoping to learn anytime soon either...

Wow, I'm surprised to hear this. Have you thumbed through the Bible lately?

...the Bible isn't bound to be the ultimate authority on any given persons theistic thoughts and opinions.

Now who is trying to

Quote:
pick one of the 'worst' words that you can think of

and tie it to something?

This is the same kind of thinking as "It is intolerant to oppose intolerance". It doesn't work.
I wouldn't be needing to associate any 'label' with 'anything' if you weren't so eager to.

I've been trying to avoid this whole 'meme' conversation since Kevin brought it up. I don't really see it as a worthwhile discussion. Lack of belief, as in not believing black people are inferior to white people, is not a 'meme' by definition.

You are creating your own reality by wording things a certain way.
You can easily re-word it as the belief or opinion that: "there is no reason to see one race as 'superior' to another."

And if we have an inbuilt reason to behave otherwise, then a 'meme' that can counter that natural instinct would be a great blessing indeed.

[_GoodK]

Ahh - ok. So you aren't concentrating on definition 3 then?
...if not, my challenge stands. Get back to me when you have watched the video...

IDK what you are talking about - concentrating???

Your use of english reminds me of my childhood days with silly putty...

And this forum is a representation of what "most" people believe "often"?

I didn't use the word 'most'. I only used the word 'often'.

Ok, well, even worse. Makes no sense.

I live in a country where about half of its occupants believe Jesus will be returning, wielding his magic powers, sometime in their lifetime

I understand that your local situation is considerably different than - say - mine.
This doesn't relieve you of your responsibility to place the blame where it is due.

Ok, so let me get this straight, who am I responsible for blaming? All of humanity? I can't wait to dive into this a bit further....

Sounds like you are living in a fairy tale world where all the "theists" behave like Liz, Jersey Girl, etc... While your country is certainly more secular than mine, I know it isn't as free from religious lunacy as you imply.

I'm worried about those people more than I am worried about theists like Jersey Girl, who seem more than happy to separate belief in God from religious dogma.

Do you believe you are making a point different to the one I was making...?

To be honest I lost you back when we were playing word games with Dogma and Secular. I don't know what point you could possibly be making anymore - of course I usually have a hard time with your posts.
Hopefully it becomes more clear soon.

Have you considered whether you are part of the solution, or part of the problem?
We don't have such religious contention over here in this part of world. And we didn't achieve that state of affairs by officially declaring religion - nor theism -'silly' or 'dangerous'.

I believe this to be false, like I said earlier. But even if it was true, I feel the part of the problem lies with the religious fanatics, religious moderates and the defenders of religous moderates. If religion or theism was able to leave the rest of the non theism world alone, there would be no need for discussions like this.
And if theists were able to leave other theists alone, there would not be "religious contention." Unfortunately, neither is the case.

I don't find myself as part of the problem or part of the solution, merely a sponge in a world of far better experts than myself, and I use this forum to share what I've learned and try and improve my own reasoning.

Well, unfortunately I don't know how to think so much of my own opinion, as to think so lowly of others based only on disagreement. I literally don't know how to do that.

Ya, I expected this sort of defensive, patronizing response from you. It's ok if you would like to paint a picture of me thinking lowly of others based only on disagrement, like the duck I called a stapler earlier, it doesn't make it true.

I think a belief in God is just as supported by reason and evidence whether it is divorced or engulfed in religion, so I stand by my original statement.

I'm as sure as I can be that there is no God. But I've never known how to think like you appear to...

I'm not hoping to learn anytime soon either...

Moral of the story: "Atheists" can make straw men too....

Wow, I'm surprised to hear this. Have you thumbed through the Bible lately?

...the Bible isn't bound to be the ultimate authority on any given persons theistic thoughts.

Ok. Let's forget it ever existed then. The most popular, most read book on the planet. Give me a break, you're grasping for straws....

This is the same kind of thinking as "It is intolerant to oppose intolerance". It doesn't work.
I wouldn't be needing to associate any 'label' with 'anything' if you weren't so eager to.

What in the world are you even saying? Is this legible to anyone else? If it is, does anyone mind posting a translation so I can respond?

You are creating your own reality by wording things a certain way.

This is because I watched The Secret the other day. Apparently we all create our own reality. No, but seriously, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black!

You can easily re-word it as the belief or opinion that: "there is no reason to see one race as 'superior' to another."

Why would you like me to reword it? I am not talking about the merits of a racist belief, surely my post did not imply such a thing.
I am simply trying to point out that not being a racist is not a belief system just as much as not being a muslim is not a belief system. How can I say this any more clearly?

[_Ren]

IDK what you are talking about - concentrating???

Because the different definitions of 'skeptic' supplied have distinctly different meanings.
No games - I am actually making every effort to clarify here.

Ok, well, even worse. Makes no sense.

It means generalising theists makes no sense.

Sounds like you are living in a fairy tale world where all the "theists" behave like Liz, Jersey Girl, etc...

I don't know why you would beleive this, when I've never said such a thing.

While your country is certainly more secular than mine, I know it isn't as free from religious lunacy as you imply.

It isn't free of religious lunacy, and I never said it was. I said that we don't have the same kind of religious contention. We are not only more secular, but we are secular in a distinctly different manner to the USA.

Now - again - I ask the question. Are we in a different state of affairs here because official proclamations were made stating that religion - or 'God belief' - is either 'silly' or 'dangerous'?

To be honest I lost you back when we were playing word games with Dogma and Secular.

I've asked you to clarify which definition of Dogma you are working with. That is not a word game. That is actually trying to avoid word games.

If religion or theism was able to leave the rest of the non theism world alone, there would be no need for discussions like this.

It can, and does - in many parts of the world.

Unfortunately, neither is the case.

The only way you can make the statement is .via the gift of generalisation.

merely a sponge in a world of far better experts than myself

If you are talking about people like Kenneth Miller, than well - I suggest you get soaking....

Ya, I expected this sort of defensive, patronizing response from you. It's ok if you would like to paint a picture of me thinking lowly of others based only on disagrement, like the duck I called a stapler earlier, it doesn't make it true.

You are calling belief in God 'stupid'.
Not slavish devotion to religious dogma. Not swallowing of 'truths' from the pulpit.
You are making no distinction between the statements 'I know there is a God', and 'I believe there is a God'.

You are saying that literally all theists are being 'stupid'.

If a duck quacks... *shrug*

I think a belief in God is just as supported by reason and evidence whether it is divorced or engulfed in religion, so I stand by my original statement.

The possible properties of the proposed God can be considerably different when such a 'God concept' is divorced from religious dogma.

Ok. Let's forget it ever existed then.

Really? Why? Have I suggested we do that?

...the Bible isn't bound to be the ultimate authority on any given persons theistic thoughts and opinions.

Give me a break, you're grasping for straws....

I'm not grasping at straws. I just told you something that was true.

What in the world are you even saying? Is this legible to anyone else? If it is, does anyone mind posting a translation so I can respond?

I think I was pretty clear...

Why would you like me to reword it?

I don't want you to reword it. I'm demonstrating that the distinction between 'belief' and 'non-belief' can be nothing more than a matter of wording.

How can I say this any more clearly?

You are speaking loud and clear. To me at least...

[_marg]

You know, RoP I've read your exchanges with GoodK in which he/she was responding to Tal.

Where exactly do you address GoodK's key points?
i.e.
1) That dogma is a problem with regards to potential danger whether it comes from religion or some where else.

2) That lack of belief or skepticism of any religious belief system does not entail being a belief system in and of itself.

I see little substance from you addressing Goodk's response. I see tangents (re def'n of dogma & skepticism), non sequitur responses, ad hominems by innuendos, misunderstanding of key terms such as memes, skepticism, to create strawmen fallacies, you create work i.e. expecting another to listen to a video of 117 minutes. You also pose questions not with the intent of clarifying but with an intent to derail from the main topic and it appears to argue for the sake of it.

I could go through giving examples but I don't want to entirely derail this thread myself. I would like you to actually address key points instead of all the fallacious argumentation you employ.

[_Ren]

1) That dogma is a problem with regards to potential danger whether it comes from religion or some where else.

Why would I dispute not only that which I already agree with, but which is Tal's own point?

2) That lack of belief or skepticism of any religious belief system does not entail being part of a belief system.

I am not disputing that point. The fact that some other beliefs and opinions will be present - whether related or not - isn't worthy of debate.

As far as the rest, only in this kind of thread can an effort to determine exactly which definition is being employed be described as 'word games'.
It is highly ironic...

but with an intent to derail from the main topic and it appears to argue for the sake of it.

I am not derailing from the main topic at all.
And I am not arguing for the sake of it. I am arguing against the position being proposed because I not only find it untrue, but an attitude that is for the worse - not better.

Saying that I am arguing 'just for the sake of it' is completely false.

[_GoodK]

You know, RoP I've read your exchanges with GoodK in which he/she was responding to Tal.

Where exactly do you address GoodK's key points?
I.e.
1) That dogma is a problem with regards to potential danger whether it comes from religion or some where else.

2) That lack of belief or skepticism of any religious belief system does not entail being a belief system in and of itself.

I see little substance from you addressing Goodk's response. I see tangents (re def'n of dogma & skepticism), non sequitur responses, ad hominems by innuendos, misunderstanding of key terms such as memes, skepticism, to create strawmen fallacies, you create work I.e. expecting another to listen to a video of 117 minutes. You also pose questions not with the intent of clarifying but with an intent to derail from the main topic and it appears to argue for the sake of it.

I could go through giving examples but I don't want to entirely derail this thread myself. I would like you to actually address key points instead of all the fallacious argumentation you employ.

I'm glad someone else noticed, I do not wish to continue talking in circles with her. I find discussions with ROP usually confusing, somewhat surreal, and geared towards the many different meanings of words.

She did, however, indicate we were moving on (?) to a belief in God divorced from religion, which is fine with me, if she would like to elaborate on:

1. What characteristics this "God" posesses

2. What is different about this "God"

and most importantly:

3. What arguments of reason or evidence is there for a God that is divorced from religion, as opposed to the God most citizens of Iran believe in?

I would be glad to respond.

[_Ren]

I find discussions with ROP usually confusing, somewhat surreal

Not often had this complaint. I've had plenty of people disagree with me - all the time - but I don't often get the complaint that I cannot be understood.
Takes all kinds I suppose.

, and geared towards the many different meanings of words.

The fact that one word can have several different definitions is an important one. I'm not going to waste time debating such an obvious fact.

1. What characteristics this "God" possesses

Why are you asking me? I'm not the theist here.
I'm saying that if a theist doesn't tie themselves to religious dogma, then it isn't necessarily going to do much good going to the Bible (or ANY religious text for that matter) to try and understand their 'concept' of God.

3. What arguments of reason or evidence is there for a God that is divorced from religion, as opposed to the God most citizens of Iran believe in?

In my personal opinion, nothing convincing.

But I don't find it particularly 'stupid' to believe in a more Deistic-like concept of God. I don't even find it necessarily 'stupid' to believe in a God that meddles in the world 'to some degree' - it would depend on the type of 'poking' involved.

I disagree with the opinion, and have distinct reasons for disagreeing - but that's not the same thing as finding their opinion 'stupid'.

Were those answers clear enough for you?
Oh - and I'm not a 'she'.

[_GoodK]

1. What characteristics this "God" possesses

Why are you asking me? I'm not the theist here.
I'm saying that if a theist doesn't tie themselves to religious dogma, then it isn't necessarily going to do much good going to the Bible (or ANY religious text for that matter) to try and understand their 'concept' of God.

I give up. I have no clue what you are saying here, or what your argument is.
I'll let someone else try and decode ROP's position.

But I don't find it particularly 'stupid' to believe in a more Deistic-like concept of God either. I don't even find it 'stupid' to believe in a God that meddles in the world 'to some degree' - it would depend on the type of 'poking' involved.

If you'd like to start a new thread, why GoodK thinks a belief in God is stupid, be my guest, and I'll elaborate ad naseum...


Edited to add: If you keep editing your posts after I respond to them it makes the confusion surrounding them even worse

[Guest]

I give up. I have no clue what you are saying here, or what your argument is.

My argument is that the Bible isn't a decent representation of the concept 'Theism' as a whole, as I made very clear earlier. It only represents a very specific subset of 'theistic' thought.
I'm sorry that you didn't follow along. But that really isn't my problem.

If you'd like to start a new thread, why GoodK thinks a belief in God is stupid, be my guest, and I'll elaborate ad naseum...

*shrug* I can or you can. As you like...

Edited to add: If you keep editing your posts after I respond to them it makes the confusion surrounding them even worse

This is fair. Most of it is spelling corrections and the odd rewording of the same point, but I'll try and cut down on that.
Nothing you have quoted incorrectly states my position...

[_marg]

1) That dogma is a problem with regards to potential danger whether it comes from religion or some where else.

Why would I dispute not only that which I already agree with, but which is Tal's own point?

Most theists are not divorced from religious organizations. Most in this world, and I would say most on this board as well adhere to the beliefs put forward by particular religious organizations, they may pick and choose a bit but still do adopt lots of the dogma relating to the God of that organiztion. And most of these organizations use sacred text, have religious authorities which present doctrine and dogma, particular God beliefs, particular system of reward and punishments for beliefs, particular afterlife beliefs. What on earth is your argument RoP? That most theists hold no religious dogma beliefs?

It boils down to critical thinking. To the extent that people relinguish responsibility to question no matter the authority, to be closed minded as opposed to skeptical and willing to adapt their thinking to new information..they pose a potential threat of harm to others and themselves due to poor and irrational decision making based on unwarranted/unjustifed reasoning.

And religious organizations have demonstrated they are an authoritative source which discourages critical thinking in lieu of acceptance of their doctrine, politics and dogma.

2) That lack of belief or skepticism of any religious belief system does not entail being part of a belief system.

I am not disputing that point. The fact that some other beliefs will be present - whether related or not - isn't worthy of debate.

Your reply makes no sense to me. It appears to be nonsensical and a non sequitur to my comment.