Brilliant Article on Secularism vs Religion - Page 2

As I say - I understand things differently to you. You call that lying.

It's all the same to me - it's enough we are on opposite sides of the fence. I can admit I am a liar if it makes you feel better.

But when does the debate start?

The answer is: never.

But that is the whole point isn't it?

Well - if you refer to me stop lying: I am not a Christian.

See you are a liar too....I told you we all are hahah! Welcome to the club!

I'd ask you to prove it but I don't really care....I KNOW we are all liars...it doesn't bother me a bit.

How does it feel for you?

Yes...if necessary. I am not yet convinced it is - which is kind of the point. That is not enough for you, you have to call me a liar when actually I may just be misunderstanding. Or you might (though obviously that is hightly unlikely).

I will give my reasoning and let's see.

In my view someone who calls themselves an atheist is claiming there is no God.

I base this on the definition of the Oxford English Dictionary:


I believe that Nr Dawkins claims to be an atheist. Therefore I feel it is legitimate to logically conclude that he denies the existence of God.

I have nowhere - despite BR's lie above (hey, this is cool this lying thing - kind of like being back at school!) - claimed that Dawkins stated that 'there is no God' in one of his books but rather that he 'says there is no God' and I belive this is grammatically correct in as much as he takes the position of being an 'atheist'.

Just like if I claim to be a Christian then you can legitimately state that I claim to believe Jesus is the son of God.

Unless we want to play word games which could also be fun.

Actually I agree with Dawkins in many respects - you wouldn't know that yet - too busy leaping to his defence. For example, he says the following:


I agree with this. The key words are in the sense defined - ie, defined by Dawkins.

So it is with my words they are in the sense defined.

If you want to label them as lies by judging them outside of this context then it's fine by me. Holds the same for Dawkins.

Unless of course, he has some special status because he is 'divinely right' or something.

Depends which rules we are playing.

I don't care which ones they are - it is a bar-room brawl either way and I'm generally up for a ruck - but it would be good if the rules were the same ones for both sides.

You lost me here......

Welcome to my world...I have been putting up with the same shit all thread.

Now let's move on. I asked Shetline a question aeons ago but there was no answer.

Now I ask you and let's see if we can salvage something: if you could sum up what you find objectionable in religion - or why you think it is 'a bad thing' if you prefer - in a brief outline, how would you frame it?

Ok, I recant then. You are right. But then I am also an atheist as I do not believe in the existence of God as described in the major religions in a literal sense but I do belief there is a possibilty he exists.

Am I an atheist?

Also: your dogmatism would be insuting and offensive to people who are capable of being insulted. Luckily I am not but I think your tone does not really help the cause of your debate...it reminds me very much of certain fundies I have known. So sure they are right, so sure that they 'know' and so unwilling to acknowledge someone else thinks in a certain way even if that way is not correct.

It is almost as if the incorrecteness of a view deserves 'punishment'; of course in yours and Dawkins' case that takes the form of derision.


Yes, I said that and I believe it. My 'crime' was to use the phrase 'he just says' but I know see this was a mistake. I had not realized the degree of petty pedantic debate that would ensue or I would have instead said "Dawkins promotes the view.....

I amend that now.


It has been demonstrated to you. You may even be right. But that does not mean it has been demonstrated to me.

In any event Dawkins himself uses other definitions of God in various places and (IMO) some of these are contradictory.


As I say, if this is true I have only a few minor issues with Dawkins (I will describe them below) and will henceforth consider myself an atheist. An atheist who subscribes to a conception of a God.

I am quite serious about this - I have always believed in the possibility of God whilst rejecting all religious dogma. I believe in evolution so it seems like the perfect belief to me.

I just hope no atheists are going to queue up to tell me I am not one now you have proved I am.


This is the place where if the boot was on the other foot you would start screaming 'LIar!!!!" again isn't it?

These claims are false.

Let's take them one at a time. I won't call you a liar...just point out where you are mistaken.

Religion squashes inquiry by claiming an answer before the question is even asked.

"Religion" does not do this. Many religious people have a strange propensity to fall into this error (as have other types of people also).

Western Christianity post-700 CE has a marked tendency to do this but I would not apply it to Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism in the Middle ages or Islam between 800 - 1300 and would argue that in all these cases the opposite can be shown to be true.

Religion indoctrinates young people in dogmatic mindsets and teaches them that they are low-born sinners.

This is undoubtedly true of Judeo-Christianity but "religion" no. There is no conception of original sin in Islam for example and even the concept of 'sin' is highly dubious. In some conceptions of Islamic thought the devil is even 'good'. In no case is he 'evil' and 'sin' is not really an issue.

Most religions today do condition young minds (but so do virtually every other system from schools to advertising so it is more a question of 'what' they are being conditioned to) but this was not always the case so again it is untrue to use the balnket term 'religion'.

Religion divides families by creating an in-group/out-group mentality.

It divides famililes in extremist religions when a family member wants to leave. I would regard this as cult-behaviour rather than religious.

Religion teaches false things about the world, often with harmful effects and often with the goal of subjugation.

On occassion this happens. Again, it does not happen every time and in every case. But it seems like you are saying it does? Are you?

If so then we would only need to find one contra-example in the whole gamut of human history.

As it happens religion often teaches true things about the world. Would you accept this?

Religion is comprised of mythology and faulty reasoning.

This is the lamest yet. Very poor.

SOME theological speculation - perhaps even most, is comprised of faulty reasoning but religion itself cannot possibly be as the reasoning (or lack of it) stems FROM a given religion and is not synonymous with it.

Jesus for example left no system of theological reasoning - this arose after the fact and in opposition to his initial views in many cases.

Again, there are numerous mythological elements in many religions. In many ways, that's what religion actually IS. I think you are missing a very big point. IT doesn't necessarily claim to be TRUE. Some religious maniacs may claim that for a given system but that does not make it the case.


I may just do that. You should not think that because I oppose Dawkins I oppose all anti-religious viewpoints.

Well, I guess I am not an atheist anymore then. It was a wild 60 minutes though.....


I would rather be neither.


Yes - or more specifically - whether I understand them as you do is pehaps more pertinent. The real question though is not who understands what but which view is correct I think....


Please do.


Many people would. Me for instance. Again; who is right and who is wrong? If we were religious we could kick each other's heads in to find out.....as it is we are at stalemate...


I think not.


Yes, No doubt. The point though is 'what is the actual religion?' I raised this with Shetline but he started babbling about new-age wooliness or something.

I would contend that Christianity is by definition the doctrine taught by Christ.

I can show you - really conclusively actually - that the doctrine generally going under that name is at variance with this man's teaching.

Therefore you need to show that the 'brutal Chrtistanity' stems from the teaching of Christ. In my opinion it stems from the teaching of the Church which is at variance with the teaching of Christ.

Of course, you may say that the Church is the true religion and not Christ's teaching and if so I would agree with your original contention. But my personal opinion is that Christianity stems from Christ and not the Church.


They may be 'huge issues' but they are in no way the same thing as in Christianity - ie Churchianity.


Well in a way they do.

Straying form the 'ordained path' results in 'hell on earth' - both are metaphors. One is medieval and one is modern.


Not really falling into the trap - just observing it.


Off the top of my head; Bahai.

But again, one MUST draw a distinction between 'decayed' religion over hundreds of years and the religion of the founder.


To be true sometimes and false sometimes - but that is not what you implied.


Very true. And religions very often offer psychological insights of great depth or contain aspects that do.


Yes, it is interesting that the men that pioneered these two fields were actually very religious Muslims. I love irony.


In theory - but that is not how history was played out is it? These things occurred in a religious context in the main....


Seeing as I am in an ironic mood due to the above quote I will continue; did you know that a theory of evolution was proposed by a Muslim clerical figure in the 13th century?


I do too. No argument there.

The dispute is to what exactly the 'nonsense' is - I am disagreeing that it is 'religion' in toto