Is religion being picked on?

[MonDie]

Do you think these guys need a bodyguard, or do you accept that, for the most part, the understanding of the freedom of speech keeps them safe?

And, to avoid the wrath of the mods...

 

"So is religion being unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought?"

No, it is being given the coverage that many think it deserves- That video isn't strictly about religion, but it shows that people are discussing these sorts of issues and have concluded that there is no reason to "protect" religion from criticism.

 

What previously happened was that religion was unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought, which includes rational criticism and debate.

 

Reiki, astrology, and crystal healing aren't scientific precisely because they haven't been shown any more effective than placebo. It's like asking whether transparency is being unfairly excluded from the color wheel.

[Jagella]

Do you believe they ridiculed you because they thought your belief in faith healing was irrational and dangerous?

 

Why would they suggest what medical treatment you should seek? Are they doctors or medical professionals?

 

Could it be that they had considered you knew of the medical care and that you had ignored it because of your faith?

 

There seems to be a lot of context missing from this story. How did they come around to start insulting you for your faith? What led to it? Is there some background that you have left out?

 

What led him to say you are of this religion and therefore, tried to threaten you with eviction or lie about eviction?

 

I don't know the answers to these questions, so please excuse me if I'd rather not speculate.

 

Once more, there is a lot of context and history missing from the story. Were you preaching to others? Were you trying to convert your neighbours? Were there loud prayer meetings in your home that disturbed your neighbours? What is missing from this narration?

I didn't keep my beliefs a secret, but I wouldn't say I preached either. Whatever I may have said, I don't believe that there should be a gag rule on religious testimony or that those professing religious beliefs should be ridiculed.

No offense, but you are being disrespectful towards atheists in this thread by labeling all with one brush. Not to mention appearing to enjoy the prospect of violence against an atheist for not believing as others do:

If you can cite one thing I said (copy and paste) in which I said all atheists were anything other than people who don't believe in gods, then I will buy you a large pizza with your choice of toppings. As for what I may enjoy, if you can read my mind I will include wings with the pizza.

Is this respectful? Is the threat of violence supposed to garner respect?

Nobody was threatened.

Would I ridicule sick or desperate people for seeking healing through religious faith? Probably not. But I would question their rationality and I would wonder whether they were possibly harming themselves or others in the process. Many children have died as a result of faith healing, because their parents deliberately chose to withhold treatment for their sick children in favour of faith healing and prayer. Do you think such individuals deserve to be respected?

Many faith healers are con artists who should be prosecuted if they harm others, and other faith healers might be honestly deluded. Showing disrespect to them is inappropriate in my opinion. I like James Randi's approach: Expose the faith healers with good evidence.

Attempting to silence someone's opinion, be it through ridicule or not, by reminding them they could be bashed and end up on the floor is not rational.

It's a fair warning. Some people may turn violent if they believe the helpless are under attack. I've seen it.

This whole thread seems to be a leading thread, with bizarre hypothetical's that are completely lacking on context, aimed at painting atheists as being some sort of monsters. And I am sorry, but literally saying that religion is being picked on because 'someone was mean to me' is not enough to prove that all atheists behave this way, nor is it enough to prove that religion is the target of any form of malicious campaign from atheists.

If we were to look at a broader picture, religion plays a role in elections in many countries around the world and potential leaders have to somehow prove that they belong to a religious faith, that they practice said faith, laws are often enacted to protect the freedom of said religious beliefs, often to the detriment of others in the populace who do not share the same beliefs. From my stand point, religious beliefs are often protected while those without beliefs are treated like social pariah's. War on religion has become a popular cry from the religious right in many countries and there is little evidence to support it.

 

Fine. Your opinion is noted. Please note that I did not attempt to censor what you said or ridicule what you said. Isn't that good? I think it is. Why then not extend the same respect and freedom to the opinions that differ from your own? Science and modern thought can progress if we are open to freedom of thought and expression of those thoughts.

That's the gist of what I've been trying to say since the OP.

Jagella

[Strange]

Science and modern thought can progress if we are open to freedom of thought and expression of those thoughts.

That's the gist of what I've been trying to say since the OP.

 

But that's irrelevant to science. It sounds like you are suggesting that scientific journals should give equal time to non-scientific ideas like creationism or free energy. There is no value to science in that.

 

On the other hand, there are areas of scientific enquiry which are not allowed for various ethical reasons. Often these are areas where people have religious objections (see the USA's bans on funding for stem-cell research, for example).

 

I can't think of an area of scientific research which has been stopped by atheists (for reasons of atheism). Can you?

[Reg Prescott]

To me, strictly from a "picking on" POV which requires one side to demonize the other, it seems clear that this is an issue where one side uses reason and rational thinking to approach the explanation of various phenomena, and the other side uses faith in a deity and religious doctrine as a basis for those explanations. Faith is defined as belief without reason, so theists rely on a much more emotion-laden process to explain their world.

 

Science is trying to appeal to the head, religion to the heart. Given the nature of the two sides involved, and the way they approach their views on reality, which side is more likely to claim they're being "picked on"?

 

That's a very loaded phrase when you think about it, "picked on". It automatically assumes a) the person(s) doing the "picking" are being bullies/cruel/unfair, b) the person being picked on doesn't deserve it, and c) if you're a good person, you will take the side of whoever is being picked on. Using a phrase like that removes any choice.

 

 

Not according to any definition I've ever heard. I don't imagine there's a single religious person out there who believes in God or gods for no reason. This is just silly, not to mention condescending. Easily tested though: let's just ask them. Hand up all those who believe in God for no reason?

 

Dictionary.com yields, among others, the following definitions:

 

2.

belief that is not based on proof:

He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:

the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

 

Belief without proof is very different from belief without reason. It might be salutary to point out that scientific theories of a universal nature (i.e. pretty much all of them) are not proven either, but widely believed nonetheless.

 

Now I'm not trying to defend religion or attack science. I'm just trying to be fair. As far as I can see Jagella is a man of integrity trying to do the very same. He should be applauded for his efforts by all those who value justice.

 

Instead, by and large, he gets abused. Go figure!

 

You're doing well, Jagella. Take heart in the fact that you have at least one admirer here.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Phi for All]

Not according to any definition I've ever heard. I don't imagine there's a single religious person out there who believes in God or gods for no reason. This is just silly, not to mention condescending. Easily tested though: let's just ask them. Hand up all those who believe in God for no reason?

 

Definitions do seem to be a huge problem for your discussion style. Since this is a science forum (we put a big sign on the door, dude), I obviously meant "reason" as in rational thought, not reason as in a cause to do something. Is this another example of religious emotional kneejerkism?

[Jagella]

But that's irrelevant to science. It sounds like you are suggesting that scientific journals should give equal time to non-scientific ideas like creationism or free energy. There is no value to science in that.

 

Actually, scientific journals have peer reviewed many ideas such as creationism that might appear to be fringe science. Those ideas were found to be lacking in scientific merit. They were not just dismissed with a wave of the hand.

 

On the other hand, there are areas of scientific enquiry which are not allowed for various ethical reasons. Often these are areas where people have religious objections (see the USA's bans on funding for stem-cell research, for example).

I believe that the public should have a say regarding ethics in science because science affects us all. If the objections are purely religious and the science has not been proved to be harmful, then it may be OK to go ahead with the research.

I can't think of an area of scientific research which has been stopped by atheists (for reasons of atheism). Can you?

I'm not sure about stopping science "for reasons of atheism," but I do know that Stalin interfered with the scientific research in the Soviet Union with disastrous consequences.

Jagella

[Reg Prescott]

 

Definitions do seem to be a huge problem for your discussion style. Since this is a science forum (we put a big sign on the door, dude), I obviously meant "reason" as in rational thought, not reason as in a cause to do something. Is this another example of religious emotional kneejerkism?

 

Ignoring the ad hominen, and with apologies for not finding obvious what you apparently did, let's now take "reason" to mean rational thought.

 

What exactly is your claim:

 

All belief in God is supported by nothing more than appeals to emotion? There are no religious apologists who defend their beliefs with rational argument? (Clearly false)

 

Some religious apologists do not defend their beliefs with rational argument? (Trivially true and entirely uncontroversial)

 

Or what?

Edited November 10, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Phi for All]

Ignoring the ad hominen,

Quite deliberately, there was no ad hominem. Are you your discussion style?

 

What exactly is your claim:

Remember the part earlier today you highlighted in red? Faith is defined as belief without reason, strong belief without the kind of rational support one normally requires for claims of that magnitude. Faith asks us to believe in a deity that can do anything, be anywhere, know everything.

 

If I told you my dog could speak French, you'd demand I show you before you'd believe me. If I told you I was God, but proving it to you would make your faith pointless, would you have faith in Me?

 

The point I was trying to make, to stay on topic and stop making this about defending one side or another, was that religion's appeal is much more emotional than science's, and seems very much more liable to feelings of persecution and ridicule, of being picked on by intellectuals who can't look past all those obvious flaws and ignorant errors and see the true beauty and divine spirit of the religion.

[Reg Prescott]

@ Phi For All

 

A couple of thoughts on your post above:

 

(1). Certainly you raise a good a point that we should distinguish between what we might call (i) epistemic reasons for belief, and (ii) non-epistemic reasons for belief. Perhaps the latter might be identified with practical reasons for belief.

 

I'd say it's also uncontroversial that scientists, by and large, are concerned only with the former. With the religious, I think you'll find both kinds, or a combination thereof. A close friend of mine, for example, believes in God largely because, given certain unfortunate circumstances in her own life, belief in God is helpful to her. She candidly admits as much too. This kind of reason for belief is clearly of the non-epistemic variety.

 

It's simply not true, however, to suggest that large numbers of religious believers do not invoke epistemic reasons to support their beliefs. Now you might not find their reasons compelling, but they are nonetheless appealing to rational argument and not emotion.

 

 

(2). The loquacious pooch example seems inappropriate to me. A demonstration of said mongrel's Gallic verbosity would constitute proof of your claim. What's relevant to our present discussion, I believe, is the question of epistemic warrant -- evidence, if you like; i.e., that which can support a claim in the absence of a conclusive demonstration -- not proof. There is no proof of either general scientific theories or the existence of God.

 

Barring a demonstration (i.e. proof), the only evidence I would have for your dog's French fluency is your own testimony; evidence that certainly wouldn't persuade me given the implausibility of the claim, and I daresay would not convince very many religious believers either. In short then, no, I would not take it on faith that your dog speaks French, and I don't imagine many religious people are of such a woeful degree of gullibility that they would either.

 

But once again, this is easily tested: ask them!

 

We might also wonder what the point of the comparison is: that belief in God is as ridiculous as belief in a French-speaking dog on the grounds that one stranger says so? If so, I'd say it's insulting in the extreme. If not, we must ask: what is the point of the comparison?

 

 

(3). As for your comment: "... [religion] seems very much more liable to feelings of persecution and ridicule..." I respectfully disagree. Speaking merely as an outsider peering through the window, with no particular allegiance to either clan, I find the scientific community to be every bit as conservative, biased, tribalistic, defensive, and hostile to criticism (watch how many -1 rep points I earn for this post) as the religious can be. This is, of course, my personal opinion. Others will doubtless demur. When one is part of a group, one tends not to see oneself as outsiders do.

 

 

 

Edit P.S. - The obvious exception to all I've said in (1) above is evolutionary theory. Certain scientists and science followers not only get emotional at any hint that the theory might be flawed, but positively livid. It's clearly a matter of great importance to them that the theory be more or less true. And wanting something to be true is surely not conducive to epistemic objectivity.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[overtone]

 

 

If you can cite one thing I said (copy and paste) in which I said all atheists were anything other than people who don't believe in gods, then I will buy you a large pizza with your choice of toppings

In every post on this thread, you have assumed that atheists are separate from religious people. You have likewise assumed that atheists form a group that is accountable for the behavior of its members. You have also employed the phrase "we atheists" in describing what you present as your own stance - no category of belief describable by you as "we" includes even a large minority of the atheists on this planet.

[Jagella]

In every post on this thread, you have assumed that atheists are separate from religious people. You have likewise assumed that atheists form a group that is accountable for the behavior of its members.

 

I asked for a "copy and paste" direct quotation of anything I've said in which I referred to "all atheists." Do you have any such quotation? You assume too much.

 

You have also employed the phrase "we atheists" in describing what you present as your own stance - no category of belief describable by you as "we" includes even a large minority of the atheists on this planet.

 

Regarding my use of the term "we atheists," I'm simply referring to atheists, a group I belong to. I'm fully aware that atheists differ on many issues. I'm exhorting atheists to act rationally and morally. What exactly is wrong with that? Do you object to being rational and moral?

 

Jagella

[iNow]

The objection seems to be that this feedback should be focused specifically on atheists, as opposed to on all human beings who are s part of this vast global civilization.

[Phi for All]

I'm exhorting atheists to act rationally and morally. What exactly is wrong with that? Do you object to being rational and moral?

 

Please stop using this strawman. It does NOT make a good argument. As iNow mentions, the objection is that you're singling atheists out because of a personal experience, when your exhortations should apply to all equally. You've made no case that atheists are less rational and moral than anyone else.

[Jagella]

Please stop using this strawman.

 

I'm not making an argument.

 

As iNow mentions, the objection is that you're singling atheists out because of a personal experience, when your exhortations should apply to all equally.

 

I have already posted that everybody and not just atheists should act sensibly, fairly, and morally.

 

It does NOT make a good argument. You've made no case that atheists are less rational and moral than anyone else.

 

I never said they were!

 

Phi, please read what's actually posted rather than what you imagine to be posted.

 

Jagella

[John Cuthber]

 

She does not burn witches.

Heretic!

It's right there in the Bible that she must do that.

 

 

I have already posted that everybody and not just atheists should act sensibly, fairly, and morally.

 

 

Phi, please read what's actually posted rather than what you imagine to be posted.

 

 

OK, I will read it.

Yuo said "I'm exhorting atheists to act rationally and morally. What exactly is wrong with that? Do you object to being rational and moral? "

And yes, you are still picking on atheists by singling them out.

 

Whynot stop doing that?

Why not say

"I'm exhorting people to act rationally and morally"

rather than taking sides?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Another reminder to please try and stick to the OP.

SillyBilly, you have been asked before to lay off the evolution/creationism line. We're not going to keep reminding you.

[Phi for All]

I'm not making an argument.

You started a thread asking if atheists are picking on theists unfairly, and you're "exhorting them to act rationally and morally". Isn't that arguing that they are failing some benchmark test now? More than other groups and so needing specific focus?

 

And the strawman is when you ask "Do you object to being moral and rational?" Nobody, especially overtone, has suggested anything like this. But it's easier to attack a strawman you made up. No offense, I'm pointing out a very common fallacy because I think you're smarter than that, and don't need to go to the Dark Side to make your points.

 

I have already posted that everybody and not just atheists should act sensibly, fairly, and morally.

If you look back, the subject was pretty well evenly discussed in the beginning. It was a good title question with some thought-provoking dialogue. But when you were asked why you were singling out atheists for your exhortations, rather than state it the way you did above, you doubled-down on the argument that atheists had ridiculed you in the past, and were deserving of more attention in the matter of civil, rational, moral behavior.

 

If you're willing to stick by what I quoted you on here, then I'd say we're probably done with aiming at atheists. Every group and individual has probably picked on some religion or lack of religion at one time or another. Is there any discussion left on that aspect? Or is it possibly the case that religion has so many contradictions, errors, and interpretation that it makes an easy target?

 

I could also argue that ridicule can be an effective tool when someone is being ridiculous. Not that that's the case with all religion, but it can be like a slap in the face for someone in hysterics. Ridicule is not a 100% bad option when someone needs to be shown they have no leg to stand on. Being "picked on" sounds like persecution though. If ridicule isn't immediately effective (despite the bucket of cold water, the dreamer still sleeps), it should NOT be continued.

[Jagella]

OK, I will read it.

Yuo said "I'm exhorting atheists to act rationally and morally. What exactly is wrong with that? Do you object to being rational and moral? "

And yes, you are still picking on atheists by singling them out.

 

OK, John, if it makes you happy, then go ahead and act irrationally and immorally. Don't let anything I say get in the way of that.

 

Whynot stop doing that?

Why not say

"I'm exhorting people to act rationally and morally"

rather than taking sides?

 

I already said that, but for your convenience--People need to act rationally and morally. All better?

 

If you bothered to read the OP, the topic of this thread asked if the religious are being picked on. I asked if religion has any place in modern science and discourse. Naturally, one group that might be picking on the religious are atheists. That's why I focused on atheists. It relates to the topic. If you don't like that topic, then move on to another thread.

 

Jagella

[Strange]

OK, John, if it makes you happy, then go ahead and act irrationally and immorally. Don't let anything I say get in the way of that.

 

So you are repeating that strawman even when it has been carefully explained to you?

 

 

If you bothered to read the OP, the topic of this thread asked if the religious are being picked on.

 

But you seem to have largely ignored most of the responses to that and kept banging on about atheists.

[Phi for All]

OK, John, if it makes you happy, then go ahead and act irrationally and immorally. Don't let anything I say get in the way of that.

 

Seriously, if you're interested in rational, civil, and moral discussion about this subject, you HAVE to look up what a strawman argument is, see how you've been doing this a LOT, and PLEASE STOP IT! It's very frustrating to invest time and resources into a conversation with someone when they use logical fallacies like this as a reply to a serious question.

 

Once again (last time), John was NOT saying you're wrong because he thinks he should be allowed to act irrationally and immorally. OK, do you understand that part? That's the part you've been arguing against, the part that's like a man of straw that you decided was easier to knock down than John's real argument, which is that atheists don't actually pick on theists more than any other group, so why are you singling them out? Do you understand that part?

 

Why didn't you take the opportunity I gave in my last post, and move forward in this discussion? Now it seems like you're tripling down on your earlier statements about mean, immoral, irrational atheists who persecute the religious, instead of actually following your latest stance, which is:

 

I have already posted that everybody and not just atheists should act sensibly, fairly, and morally.

[Jagella]

 

You started a thread asking if atheists are picking on theists unfairly, and you're "exhorting them to act rationally and morally". Isn't that arguing that they are failing some benchmark test now? More than other groups and so needing specific focus?

 

I know that some atheists are falling short of rationality and morality. I decided to focus on them as a result.

 

And the strawman is when you ask "Do you object to being moral and rational?" Nobody, especially overtone, has suggested anything like this. But it's easier to attack a strawman you made up. No offense, I'm pointing out a very common fallacy because I think you're smarter than that, and don't need to go to the Dark Side to make your points.

 

To my knowledge the question was never answered. Dodging questions tends to make me suspicious.

 

If you're willing to stick by what I quoted you on here, then I'd say we're probably done with aiming at atheists. Every group and individual has probably picked on some religion or lack of religion at one time or another. Is there any discussion left on that aspect?

 

You may be correct, but I'd like to discuss the way some atheists have picked on the religious. If you don't like that topic, then move on to another thread.

 

Or is it possibly the case that religion has so many contradictions, errors, and interpretation that it makes an easy target?

 

Religion can be very easy to ridicule, but I generally don't take that route anymore. I prefer a fair, open assessment of religious claims to see what truth they may contain.

 

I could also argue that ridicule can be an effective tool when someone is being ridiculous. Not that that's the case with all religion, but it can be like a slap in the face for someone in hysterics. Ridicule is not a 100% bad option when someone needs to be shown they have no leg to stand on. Being "picked on" sounds like persecution though. If ridicule isn't immediately effective (despite the bucket of cold water, the dreamer still sleeps), it should NOT be continued.

 

Fine. Let's ridicule you and see how effective it may be it preventing you from being ridiculous. We won't continue it if it isn't effective, though.

 

Jagella

[Reg Prescott]

All and sundry are having a ball pointing out (what they take to be) Jagella's strawmen and logical fallacies.

 

But when I respond to another member's strawman attack (comparing a friend of mine to a witch burner! - how nice and how unstrawlike is that?), my post is removed, with no mod explanation as far as I can see, and the following warning is issued:

 

SillyBilly, you have been asked before to lay off the evolution/creationism line. We're not going to keep reminding you. (post 216)

 

To which I reply: I don't recall being "asked before". Perhaps there has been a mistake. Can you please show me where I've been asked before?

 

 

@ John Cuthber, who said (post 215) : "Heretic! It's right there in the Bible that she must do that" (responding to the post of mine that was removed).

 

Answer : My friend isn't even Christian, John. Jumping to conclusions is a logical fallacy.

 

 

Now, firmly on topic, please note: Is religion being picked on? Yes!

Edited November 12, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Phi for All]

I know that some atheists are falling short of rationality and morality. I decided to focus on them as a result.

So, you're saying there's some people who belong to a larger group of people who aren't behaving the way the whole group should behave? That's the focus?

 

To my knowledge the question was never answered.

I certainly wouldn't have answered it. It was a stupid question. Just like, "Jagella, do you like asking stupid questions?" The answer to both is, "That's such a loaded question, I won't even dignify it with an answer".

 

 

Fine. Let's ridicule you and see how effective it may be it preventing you from being ridiculous. We won't continue it if it isn't effective, though.

I didn't say it would prevent being ridiculous, I said it can help some people see how ridiculous they're being in certain situations. I got ridiculed for some behavior recently. I was being stubborn and foolish, I got called on it but kept up the stubbornness. The ridicule was shocking and effective. Like a slap in the face of a hysterical person, probably the only time I would condone violence on a non-violent person. It can be effective.

 

Please take this the right way, but you have a real problem with taking something someone said about a specific situation, and applying it liberally to every situation. To repeat myself, I said ridicule wasn't 100% ineffective. Why do you misinterpret that to mean you should just ridicule me for no reason to prevent me from being ridiculed?

[MonDie]

You may be correct, but I'd like to discuss the way some atheists have picked on the religious. If you don't like that topic, then move on to another thread.

 

Beyond the aforementioned concerns, the topic question is uncontroversial and inherently biased. Of course religion gets picked, it's agreed. If we're to sit here providing examples, that's confirmation bias.

How about:

Is religion picked on disproportionately? Why? or

Are atheists unusually critical? Why?

 

It's like using a biased, one-tailed statistical test, and failing to report contrary results.

[DevilSolution]

The truth is that religion is boring. Your heaven isnt mine. Thats it......