Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From the article you just posted
"he continues to insist that religious faith is possibly the most destructive force in the world"
That is the voice of an anti religion zealot. What is wrong with that? A lot but I'll quote you Gaylen
"People who don't like religion have a strong tendency to talk about religion as if all religions are the same. People who don't like religion talk about those who are religious as if all religious people are the same. That issimplistic to the point of sheer lunacy and/or manipulative deception. Basic point: Religions are a diverse group. Religious people are a diverse group."
Sam, Harris IS a spokeperson for atheism of course, but it doesn't mean that he speaks for all atheists. I disagree with him about this or that issue.
I may not agree with his epithets about religion since I may say that the impulse to war is the most destructive force in the war, xenophobia, tribalism and, rather than religion as such, Dogma, and the desire to impose it on others, rather than religion per se, is the destructive force.
So, what I'm saying is, apart from noting that religion deprived of dogma and the power to impose it (which is the agenda we goddlesss bastards have) don't take this or that comment by this or that atheist spokesbod and present it as a bit of Dogma that applies to all atheists.
It is rather hard for believers to understand but we are as hard to herd as cats. We are all individuals (1), and there is no uniformity of views, opinion and preferences amongst atheists who share only one identifying characteristic: none of us believes in any god.
The reason we atheists talk about religious persons as though they are all the same is because the religions are based on the same false and irrational thinking.
They can all be the same where there is dogma in organized religion.
And it can LOOK as though the are lumping them all together when we pick on some aspect like scriptural literalists, Religious fraud or science (evidence) skepticism. When in fact we are only talking about those who fall into that category.
In fact it is a common fallacious ploy for those who may not actually do what they do but feel they have to support a fellow religionist (and therein lies the danger) to accuse us of tarring all the religious with the same brush when we are pointing up this or that problem or failing and, if there is a general application is it that religion is, on evidence subject to human failings and shows no sign of divine input at all.
If anything, it is those who rush to the defence of the frauds and the bigots who are putting themselves in the same camp. Not us.
The reason we atheists talk about religious persons as though they are all the same is because the religions are based on the same false and irrational thinking.....
You're doing it again.
It sounds like you are saying Buddhism and Quakers and Taoism are false and irrational thinking.
That is a false and irrational statement.
It shows false and irrational thinking.
Or to quote Gaylens fine insight, "That is simplistic to the point of sheer lunacy and/or manipulative deception."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-26-2018 at 07:20 AM..
People who don't like feminism have a strong tendency to talk about feminists as if all feminists are the same. That is simplistic to the point of sheer lunacy and/or manipulative deception.
Basic point: Feminists are, themselves, a diverse group, and most of them value diversity.
Quote:
now let's apply the reasoning in what you said (which is very sound reasoning that i agree with) to someone who is an "anti religious zealot"
"People who don't like religion have a strong tendency to talk about religion as if all religions are the same. ...Religious people are a diverse group."
I don't know enough about Harris to say that he never slips into generalizations about religion. (Again, I'm not a expert on Harris, but I've seen enough to think that he and I are basically similar in many ways.) I'm sure if you do some quote-mining you can find examples where he groups all religions together unfairly. I have probably done it myself. But I feel fairly confident in saying that he and I both know that religious people are highly diverse. I can't actually speak for Sam, but I can speak for myself and, as I've said, I think he and I are on mostly the same page concerning many key points.
So, speaking for myself: Not every soldier is the same. Some want to kill; some don't. Some have killed; some have not. Some would obey orders to massacre a village; some would not. Some would stay loyal to their country no matter what; some would become deserters or defectors. Also: The nations that soldiers serve are diverse. Some soldiers are loyal to democratic governments; some are loyal to brutal dictators. Some have helped liberate people from brutal oppression; some have been the brutal oppressors.
Despite all of this diversity, I think it is fair to say that soldiers have been a major destructive force in human history. This doesn't mean that they haven't also done a great deal of good. I am very glad that soldiers stopped Hitler from achieving his goals. Along similar lines, nationalism has been a major destructive force in human history. Nations are diverse, but when things go bad on a global scale, nationalism often plays a significant role.
When understood in context (as opposed to being quote-mined), Sam Harris is not simply anti-religion, any more than I am anti-soldier, or anti-nation. He is really trying to point out that some core beliefs that are common to most religions have played a major destructive role in human history. Like me, his focus is on the irrational nature of having faith in holy books, or faith in religious leaders. Faith is essential to human well-being. I can't use reason to prove the value of reason; I have to have faith in the value of reason. Faith in oneself is essential to accomplishing much of anything in human life. And so on. But the concept of faith is, in itself, morally neutral. One can have faith in the power of love, or one can have faith in the cause of white nationalism. The guys who flew jets into the World Trade Center had faith.
We need faith, to some extent, but we need other things as well, such as reason, compassion, healthy skepticism, and mental flexibility. Sam Harris, when understood in context, is not opposed to every aspect of every religion. He finds many ideas of great value in most religions. But, like me, he is opposed to religious dogma grounded on faith in holy books or cults of personality because faith of that sort often leads (despite frequent good intentions) to just the opposite of reason, compassion, healthy skepticism, and mental flexibility.
I would also add that when a religion like, for example, Unitarian Universalism, advocates for respecting the value of diverse spiritual paths, neither Sam Harris, or I, have any problem with it. But the vast majority of holy books and religious leaders - if interpreted literally and taken on faith without critical rational analysis - tend to push people toward a mindset of "this is the one and only way", and anyone who disagrees is an enemy of God. This aspect of many religions is a cause of a great deal of unnecessary human suffering.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-26-2018 at 07:57 AM..
like me, he is opposed to religious dogma grounded on faith in holy books or cults of personality because faith of that sort often leads (despite frequent good intentions) to just the opposite of reason, compassion, healthy skepticism, and mental flexibility.
...
it doesn't mean that he speaks for all atheists. .
this or that atheist spokesbod and present it as a bit of Dogma that applies to all atheists...
We are all individuals , and there is no uniformity of views, opinion and preferences amongst atheists who share only one identifying characteristic:
Trans you insist that atheists are "all individuals" and that he doesnt speak for all atheists. Yet you dont see religious people as individuals. And you have no problem speaking against all religion.
That's the double standard.
You chafe and object to "dogma that applies to all atheists" but then turn right around and apply your own dogma to all religion.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-26-2018 at 08:13 AM..
Dogma refers to a principle or set of principles asserted by an authority as being absolutely/incontrovertibly true. So all dogma runs a very high risk of encouraging a lack of critical thinking, and this can lead to a great deal of unnecessary suffering. But some dogmatic assertions are worse that others. And, often, the problem is not even so much with the assertion itself, but with the way in which people accept it uncritically and, from that point, take it to absurd extremes. Jesus spoke with great authority and was being dogmatic when he said "Love thy neighbor as thyself." But this, in itself, is a relatively harmless dogma. I am being somewhat dogmatic when I say "We should all attempt to think critically about dogmatic statements." But I would insist that dogmatic statements cautioning against the uncritical acceptance of dogmatic statements is a relatively harmless form of dogma.
But since the topic is religion, I am focusing mostly on religious dogma - and, more specifically, religious dogma based on holy books. Some of the dogma found in holy books is ok, but when it's bad, its awful because it is self-sealing dogma. It is dogma that often threatens your immortal soul, in one fashion or another, if you refuse to uncritically accept the dogma itself.
So Dogma is bad when religious people do it but it's okay when atheists do it?
Good grief. I'm speechless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
