diana

From your thread at Planet Wisdom: Thought Cafe: I'm Ignorant, So?

Since this seems to fit into your OP here, and because I don't feel like registering at PW at the moment (but I'll give y'all some free publicity--how's that?), I'd like to take at look at your OP on that thread:

I don't know how intelligent you are in other pursuits, but your ignorance seems to include Pascal's Wager.

If you click on the link, you'll discover that the argument you just made, such as it is, is deeply flawed from every conceivable angle and has been around since at least the 17th C. At least, that's when it first appeared in written form.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people will make this argument, as you did, as though they thought of it themselves and it makes perfect, irrefutable sense.

I'd also like to address this question you asked. I do this in good faith that you honestly do not understand why anyone would be passionate about dissuading others from what they are convinced is a form of self-delusion.

For me, arguing against religion--particularly Xnty, because it is the most rampant religion where I live--is a passion.

To begin with, I think any refusal to think and face facts takes us one step further from being able to handle our freedom responsibly. Our freedom wasn't granted by any god, unless you wish to argue that he really digs war, blood, suffering, and death (actually, a pretty good case could be made for that, but I'm working from the assumption that you believe in a benevolent god). Our freedom was earned the hard way.

For many years, I've watched people use their religious convictions as a basis for what laws they would have me abide under. Any time they are successful, they take us one step further from freedom. They can't seem to grasp that freedom of religion means that not only do they have the right to believe as they please, but so does everyone else. Because of this little rule we are proud to abide under, our laws must, perforce, be based upon reason and personal freedom--not on what Diety X told his followers they must do.

For this reason, I personally feel threatened by religions, but particularly Xnty, and particularly fundamental Xnty. The more convinced the believer is that he has knowledge (as opposed to belief), the more likely he is to try to force his "facts" on everybody else. He has no right to. But he will get away with it unless those who take their citizenship seriously stand against him.

Essentially, I stand against Xnty (and all unsupported belief that would be used to control my life) because I am a good citizen.

I have even more personal reasons for despising it, though. I know from personal experience, and from watching and talking with countless people, that religion does not take hold of your brain without first shutting it down. This doesn't mean you have to undergo a frontal lobotomy before you're baptized. I know some very intelligent people who believe in a god. But it does require that you shut down your rational facilities in the area of religion. Reason is the greatest enemy of faith.

When David Koresh used this technique to influence his philosophers, I suspect you labeled his group a "cult" and condemned him for "brainwashing" all those innocent people. Why, when you do the same thing, does the belief get promoted to a "religion," and you are "faithful" instead of brainwashed?

From the outside looking in, the only difference I see is the terminology.

d

Howay the Toon

You often get theists posting and when their postings are attacked they conclude that atheists are all rude, aggressive, anti-christian and lacking in respect.

One thing they fail to notice is that fellow atheists who post some claim with no (or insufficient) support would get called on it and criticised in exactly the same way and if they failed to acknowledge that lack of support, the abuse would soon follow.

Its rather like Creationists complaining about some great anti-xn conspiracy in ignoring and rejecting their stuff. They fail to realise that fellow atheistic scientists attempting to overthrow accepted theory without some damn good supporting evidence would get treated exactly the same way.

AmericanHeretic

I'll ignore the easily refuted Pascal's Wager aspect of this and go for the obvious consequential pragmatics.

The consequence for the individual believer, in nothing. When you die you rot. Your beliefs rot with you, unless you've passed them off or handed them down.

The consequence then, for the rest of us, of your religion's ignorance and being "not intellectually studied up" is the following:

1) Myth without factual support is claimed to be as valid as science with it's full body of factual support. Education becomes meaningless.

2) Absolute morality as derived from God and the Bible is claimed to be as valid as reasoned ethics. Philosophy and ethical reasoning become meaningless.

I argue against your religion because I want to obliterate all of your consequences, every last one of them. I want your influence out of our political system. I want your influence out of our educational system. I want your mythology kept completely apart from science. I want your bloody morals discredited and erased from the face of the globe. I want you to have to earn your human worth instead of merely pretending in order to achieve "holier than thou" standing among your peers. I want you to respect others and contribute to humanity instead of gleefully threatening that we will fry in Hell for not agreeing with you, who think you know better, because you think ignorance and myth, and fact and science, are equals.

justwonder

So you just found a story you liked and decided to believe.
By the way, I was a christian, I know the secret.

Paul2

where'd Apologetix go? i was fond of reading his babblings. (is that a word?)

openeyes

AmericanHeretic--great post!

Clutch

Well, that's a poor criticism. Presumably an omnimax god's inability to learn is not a matter of his non-omnipotence, but a matter of his omniscience. For that matter, he also can't forget anything. Or sin. Or fall down the stairs, or any number of things that you can do. These hardly amount to imperfections, though.

Aerik Von

He did not die for us. He took a three day nap. I hardly call that dying!

Aerik Von

Because he is mighty confused.

Mageth

He did not die for us. He took a three day nap. I hardly call that dying!

Actually, it appears to have been somewhat less than forty hours (late Friday afternoon until somewhere around dawn Sunday).