Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why do you think the people that he chose for the film represent the average follower?

generalgrog wrote:
You know I watched that movie after it came out on video...and the thing that struck me was that the guy picked a bunch of easy targets. It would be hilarious to see Bill Mahr interview a real apologist..you know someone that has actually studied logic, ancient greek and theology.

You know that the guy in the clip was a Latinist to the Pope, right?

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
You know I watched that movie after it came out on video...and the thing that struck me was that the guy picked a bunch of easy targets. It would be hilarious to see Bill Mahr interview a real apologist..you know someone that has actually studied logic, ancient greek and theology.

You know that the guy in the clip was a Latinist to the Pope, right?

So?

He was barely forming sentences. I don't know what that clip was supposed to prove.

I wasn't impugning religion, I actually have a lot of respect for that guy's take on Catholicism. Namely, healthy skepticism with respect to doctrine.

Regardless, the point was the Maher didn't make him look foolish. He actually came off as well educated and thoughtful, at least in my eyes. I suppose you might also say that the larger point was that exchanges between educated apologists and skeptics don't tend to play out the way that GG seems to have envisioned; primarily because educated apologists tend to give as much ground as they gain, just as educated skeptics do. The "true" apologists that never give an inch tend to be absolutely ignorant of logic, regardless of which side of the debate that they occupy.

If you want me to find examples of people that do a terrible disservice to religion, I would be happy to provide them. In nearly every case they present themselves as being entirely logical, only to proceed to absolutely butcher logic by completely ignoring the is-ought problem.

Monster Rain wrote:Why do you think the people that he chose for the film represent the average follower?

Point.

Although I don't think he specifically went out and looked for slowed people to make religion look bad. For example, he talked to an Imam, and Psychologist (that ex-Gay guy?) and a (Dr.)Reverend. These are all people that should know something about what they're doing. Sure he threw in a stop at the truck stop church, but that alone doesn't render his argement as rubbish.

Orlanth wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Bill Maher.
This guy is the poster child Atheist, and oddly enough, is a total Ahole as far as pushing his ideals on others. I think that helps a bit on why many people think of Atheists as the same

I would consider the 'poster child' atheists are the people Matty appears to envision: University seated intellectuals using long words while wearing tweed, pipe smoking optional.
By and large they do a good job as the public face of atheism. Not always though, Dawkins for example of late appears to have more angst than reason behind his view on religion. It also doesn't help that the atheist elite share university positions with people who are just as smart and tweedy who also openly practice one or other religion.

There is an inverse correlation between religiosity and high education attainment.

As for the tree, I never knew it was there, although I was aware of the legend since it forms part of King Arthur. Even though not religious myself, I strongly disagree with wanton vandalism of things of beauty.

One theory behind the destruction is that locals fed up with the Glastonbury Festival may have done it.

dogma wrote:I wasn't impugning religion, I actually have a lot of respect for that guy's take on Catholicism. Namely, healthy skepticism with respect to doctrine.

Sprinkled in among a lot of grunts and sentence fragments, sure.

dogma wrote:Regardless, the point was the Maher didn't make him look foolish. He actually came off as well educated and thoughtful, at least in my eyes.

I'm not Catholic, but if I was I think I'd find it depressing that senior priests in the Vatican are that cynical.

dogma wrote:If you want me to find examples of people that do a terrible disservice to religion, I would be happy to provide them. In nearly every case they present themselves as being entirely logical, only to proceed to absolutely butcher logic by completely ignoring the is-ought problem.

There's some apologists out there that make sense, but you already know that I'm sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why do you think the people that he chose for the film represent the average follower?

Point.

Although I don't think he specifically went out and looked for slowed people to make religion look bad. For example, he talked to an Imam, and Psychologist (that ex-Gay guy?) and a (Dr.)Reverend. These are all people that should know something about what they're doing. Sure he threw in a stop at the truck stop church, but that alone doesn't render his argement as rubbish.

There's a lot of Christians out there, you know? The larger a group, the higher the number of wingnuts associated with that group is going to be.

Monster Rain wrote: I'm not Catholic, but if I was I think I'd find it depressing that senior priests in the Vatican are that cynical.

My dad is a minister, and he's even more cynical than that guy. We laugh quietly whenever I'm home, and he has recently lead Bible study.

Like philosophy, most people do not have the skill set to adequately address theological questions. They don't like being told this, so its more of a carrot-and-stick approach; following a bit of cathartic appreciation from the clergy.

Monster Rain wrote:
There's some apologists out there that make sense, but you already know that I'm sure.

Sure, but none of them claim the logical necessity of belief, or even the necessity of God. In general they play the realistic necessity card. In other words, they argue that people should believe what they need to in order to continue their lives. I don't disagree with this point, but its not really a response to charges of absurdity; which are what Maher normally levels.

Monster Rain wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why do you think the people that he chose for the film represent the average follower?

Point.

Although I don't think he specifically went out and looked for slowed people to make religion look bad. For example, he talked to an Imam, and Psychologist (that ex-Gay guy?) and a (Dr.)Reverend. These are all people that should know something about what they're doing. Sure he threw in a stop at the truck stop church, but that alone doesn't render his argement as rubbish.

There's a lot of Christians out there, you know? The larger a group, the higher the number of wingnuts associated with that group is going to be.

More Christianity = More Wingnuts
Less Christianity = Less Wingnuts
Christian - Wingnuts = 0
Therefore: Christianity = Wingnuts

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why do you think the people that he chose for the film represent the average follower?

Point.

Although I don't think he specifically went out and looked for slowed people to make religion look bad. For example, he talked to an Imam, and Psychologist (that ex-Gay guy?) and a (Dr.)Reverend. These are all people that should know something about what they're doing. Sure he threw in a stop at the truck stop church, but that alone doesn't render his argement as rubbish.

There's a lot of Christians out there, you know? The larger a group, the higher the number of wingnuts associated with that group is going to be.

More Humans = More Wingnuts
Less Humans = Less Wingnuts
Humans - Wingnuts = 0
Therefore: Humans = Wingnuts

Fixed that for you.

The recent debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens was very interesting. While Hitchens won, Blair made some very good points.

In particular: "Religion may be a source of fanaticism, but if you removed all religion from the world, would you remove all the fanaticism too?"

Kilkrazy wrote:The recent debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens was very interesting. While Hitchens won, Blair made some very good points.

In particular: "Religion may be a source of fanaticism, but if you removed all religion from the world, would you remove all the fanaticism too?"

I wasn't seriously suggesting otherwise. Just scoring cheap points.

Kilkrazy wrote:Blair made some very good points.

In particular: "Religion may be a source of fanaticism, but if you removed all religion from the world, would you remove all the fanaticism too?"

No, but you would have removed all fanaticism promising a glorious afterlife if you murder people opposed to your particular flavour.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Blair made some very good points.

In particular: "Religion may be a source of fanaticism, but if you removed all religion from the world, would you remove all the fanaticism too?"

No, but you would have removed all fanaticism promising a glorious afterlife if you murder people opposed to your particular flavour.

KILL THE STRAWBERRIES! VANILLA MUST REIGN SUPREME!

Happygrunt wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Blair made some very good points.

In particular: "Religion may be a source of fanaticism, but if you removed all religion from the world, would you remove all the fanaticism too?"

No, but you would have removed all fanaticism promising a glorious afterlife if you murder people opposed to your particular flavour.

KILL THE STRAWBERRIES! VANILLA MUST REIGN SUPREME!

Don't say that to Rocky Road *whisper whisper*

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Blair made some very good points.

In particular: "Religion may be a source of fanaticism, but if you removed all religion from the world, would you remove all the fanaticism too?"

No, but you would have removed all fanaticism promising a glorious afterlife if you murder people opposed to your particular flavour.

But you would not have removed all fanaticism promising a glorious life if you murder people opposed to your particular flavour.

The fundamentalist atheism practiced under communism was/is very similar to the concepts of fundamentalist aggression we see in Jihadist, Zionist and Crusader movements. The ideal that the world will be better when the religious have been persecuted was a notable part of Soviet and Maoist dogma and confirmed repeatedly in histories of those times.

This is one of the most dangerous fallacies that have arisen regarding atheism: the belief that atheism will end 'relgious' fundamentalist violence and killing. Atheism is a religion in its own right, ultimately a faith of no-God. Many are atheists through non practice, others form large communions, often armed hostile, thoroughly dogmatic and under a red flag. An abolition of religion, not that it could occur, would not far from free man from religious terror, it would change the name of the God for which people are made rto suffer from a particular named diety to the concept of no-God. Especially as an abolition of religion would most likely take place under an atheistic faith based society such as much of the world suffered under for much of the twentieth century.

Atheists can be progressive, but atheism does not equal progress.

^^ Yes, exactly that.

In my view, people have various types of personalities and take elements from their culture and religion that support their personality.

That is why some Christians can be so strongly homophobic, while others are unconcerned, but both find justification in the Bible for their views. This isn't a dig at religion or Christianity BTW. You can see similar kinds of authoritarianism in political movements.

Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a religion in its own right, ultimately a faith of no-God.

No, this is false. Atheism is not a religion in any sense. Neither is theism. Pretending otherwise is tacit to homogenizing the belief in God; ie. theists believe X, where X is not simply the existence of a God.

You could make the argument that a theist believes in some sort of religious/spiritual truth and an atheist doesn't.

Not if you're also arguing that atheism is a religion.

dogma wrote:Not if you're also arguing that atheism is a religion.

Oh FFS here we go.

Saying that there is no God is as much as an article of faith as saying there is one. No one can know for sure.

Religion has a structure. Atheism does not. Neither does theism.

Da Boss wrote:Religion has a structure. Atheism does not. Neither does theism.

Some flavors of atheism doesn't have structure?

I've heard one too many FSM arguments to believe that. It's the "John 3:16" of Atheist doctrine.

So....They chopped down the branches...But left the stump? How did they manage to do that? Wouldn't it have just been easier to cut the whole thing down? Stupid Vandals.

Anyway, that's pretty sad. The history behind it makes it rather insignificant in the first place, seeing as the current tree was only 60 years old...But sad nonetheless.

Samus_aran115 wrote:So....They chopped down the branches...But left the stump? How did they manage to do that? Wouldn't it have just been easier to cut the whole thing down? Stupid Vandals.

Anyway, that's pretty sad. The history behind it makes it rather insignificant in the first place, seeing as the current tree was only 60 years old...But sad nonetheless.

Its the thought that counts.

Samus_aran115 wrote:So....They chopped down the branches...But left the stump? How did they manage to do that? Wouldn't it have just been easier to cut the whole thing down?

No, as the tree itself is surrounded by "scaffolding" to prevent the misbehaviour of rapscallions, to an extent anyway.

Monster Rain wrote:
Oh FFS here we go.

Saying that there is no God is as much as an article of faith as saying there is one. No one can know for sure.

Sure, but atheism also includes the position "I don't believe in God" which is not the same as "There is no God".

Regardless, Da Boss has hit it, the point I was making is that atheism is a category, not a religion, just like theism; meaning that atheism is no more comparable to Christianity than theism is.

I find the extreme views in this thread support my decision to rarely tell people my religion. I said it at the start because what I read wasn't really all that close-minded, but after reading some of the later comments... well it just reminds me why I don't necessarily like people knowing that i'm religious.

I don't like arguing about my religion or being questioned on the basis that if I don't have an answer, i'm not Relgiious at all, or if I do have an answer then i'm stupid for not sharing the views of people that follow science or i'm asked another question until there's one where I cannot answer, at which point i'm told that i'm told that i'm not really a Catholic because I can't answer it.

It might just be the general people in my area, but it seems to me that I cannot win either way.

Then you get people that go around calling followers of religion all sorts of baseless crap because they believe in something that other people don't.

There's also the stereotype enforcers. Suddenly, because i'm a Catholic, i'm homophobic (despite being openly bisexual...), i'm a pedophile, i'm a nutjob, I shouldn't swear, i'm not allowed to hit anyone...

To be honest, I don't force my views onto people (I don't care what religion you are, or your skin colour, gender, sexual orientation etc.) and get (rightly) p***ed off when other people try to denounce my faith and/or mock me for it.

I've lost a lot of respect for people I once thought were okay thanks to this thread.

Can't some of you just respect someone else's views on life? It is their life after all, and they are welcome to whatever they believe. It may or may not be correct, but it is not up to you to try and convince them of that.

Monster Rain wrote:
Some flavors of atheism doesn't have structure?

I've heard one too many FSM arguments to believe that. It's the "John 3:16" of Atheist doctrine.

Here's the thing, you're attributing a structure to the whole of a category on the basis of nothing other than membership in that category. Its like saying that all theists believe that Jesus was the son of God because Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God. Clearly neither is true, yet one of them persists.

Its funny really, because Western society seems to view atheism and Islam in much the same light. In essence, both are seen as being monolithic in the sense that all Muslims believe X, just as all atheists apparently believe Y. Its sort of ridiculous really.