One for Barry

[Tiger Feet]

Religion, of course extends the fairy tales into adulthood, which can have a tremendously corrosive effect.

But the price of that happiness and coping is that they are also liable to demand that the rest of the world fall into line with their personal delusions - cf. what is happening with the current political discussion on stem cell research, in which some hysterical over-reaction by church figures who - from their prominence - you would expect to be of significantly above average intelligence, but who are saying that if the bill is passed it will lead to the creation of chimeras, which of course it absolutely will not (and they should understand that fine well), is allied with more moderate but still totally irrational complaints by other church figures because they believe in something about the conception of human beings for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence. In the meantime, any rational discussion of the moral and ethical issues involved is simply drowned out by the shrieks of outrage from the faith heads.


However, why do you say I have to prove that a majority of religions people are harmful to society? By that token you can't disapprove of pedophilia until you prove that the majority of pedophiles are a danger to society. Most people would accept that the few dangerous ones there are a quite sufficient for us to disapprove of them in general.

Actually, Isis didn't say you have to prove anything...she said she would agree with you if you could prove it. You can't.

It seems rather ridiculous for you to accuse religious leaders of hysterical over-reaction, drowning out rational discussion, when you then resort to linking a tolerance of religion to a tolerance of paedophilia.

It also seems a bit ridiculous to be critical of Stewart38's grammar, spelling etc when you clearly aren't taking care to proof read your own posts !.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Actually, Isis didn't say you have to prove anything...she said she would agree with you if you could prove it. You can't.

Contradictory religions can be disproved easily enough. Lets not go there though

It seems rather ridiculous for you to accuse religious leaders of hysterical over-reaction, drowning out rational discussion, when you then resort to linking a tolerance of religion to a tolerance of paedophilia.

Why? There is no "linking" here except in your own mind. Do you think if you highlight "paedophilia" (oooh see what he said) you can ignore Barrys point ? stop it

It also seems a bit ridiculous to be critical of Stewart38's grammar, spelling etc when you clearly aren't taking care to proof read your own posts !.

Now you're just talking nonsense. If Ronaldo were to watch me play football and criticise my many mistakes could I say to him: but YOU hit the post last Saturday, and lost the ball several times the week before...bah... your finishing may be world class but its not perfect...etc...

...well i could, but...

[Tiger Feet]

Contradictory religions can be disproved easily enough. Lets not go there though

I'm not denying that...I simply don't believe that religion is a bad thing generally. It's not forced down my throat because I can easily ignore it. Although I'm not sure why you don't want to go there - is it too painful for you?

Why? There is no "linking" here except in your own mind. Do you think if you highlight "paedophilia" (oooh see what he said) you can ignore Barrys point ? stop it

Barry's post is quite clear, even though his spelling is a bit off. It says that if someone says you can't say religion is bad because you can't prove that the majority of religious people are bad, then, by that token, you can't disapprove of paedophilia until you prove that the majority of paedophiles are a danger to society. It's a ridiculous comparison. Maybe it would be better to stick to Tesco and peat bogs. I haven't 'highlighted' it. He typed it, made the comparison and I gave my opinion. You stop it.

Now you're just talking nonsense. If Ronaldo were to watch me play football and criticise my many mistakes could I say to him: but YOU hit the post last Saturday, and lost the ball several times the week before...bah... your finishing may be world class but its not perfect...etc...

...well i could, but...

But what?

[Barry Shnikov]

Actually, Isis didn't say you have to prove anything...she said she would agree with you if you could prove it. You can't.

Why do I feel as though I fell into a tag wrestling match?
My point - which I would have thought fairly obvious - is that she ought not to demand such proof before agreeing with me - other things being equal.

It seems rather ridiculous for you to accuse religious leaders of hysterical over-reaction, drowning out rational discussion, when you then resort to linking a tolerance of religion to a tolerance of paedophilia.

I never! Sir, sir! She said I did but I never!

I attempted to illustrate the wrongness of Isis' assertion that it's necessary for a majority of religious people to be dangerous for her to agree that religion is a bad thing. My illustration is not reliant on tolerance of religion, nor on tolerance of pedophilia. It's to do with the relationship of the prevalence of a phenomenon to its consequences. That's why a very different phenomenon is used to make the illustration.

It also seems a bit ridiculous to be critical of Stewart38's grammar, spelling etc when you clearly aren't taking care to proof read your own posts !.

When my posts start sounding like a cross between a Sufi mystic and the robot from Lost in Space, with every fourth word mis-spelled (but crucially, in a way which is often a proper spelling for a different word), then you can haul me over the coals for gently pointing out to stewart that his posts are impenetrable.

[Isis]

Why do I feel as though I fell into a tag wrestling match?

Aww, are we too much of a handful for you? I'm busy at the mo' but will enter the ring again shortly. Ding Ding - Round 10.

[Tiger Feet]

Why do I feel as though I fell into a tag wrestling match?

Dunno. Ask your therapist

My point - which I would have thought fairly obvious - is that she ought not to demand such proof before agreeing with me - other things being equal.

Ah-ha! She should just agree with you! Me Tarzan, you Jane...I get it now.

I never! Sir, sir! She said I did but I never!

You did

[Isis]

I'm sorry my logical arguments have not been such that you were able to follow them. I'll try to explain them better.

Thank you so much for your kind consideration in this matter but, while the relevance of your analogies is generally obscured beneath muddy and murky waters, the flaws in your logic are crystal clear.

You started with this:

My thesis, as I have tried to set out in these forums many times before, is that

religion promotes credulity,
that credulity leads to a lot of undesirable results,
and that therefore religion is a bad thing generally.

This didn’t work because you had to admit that religion doesn’t cause credulity, therefore it does not follow that the undesirable results resulting from credulity are caused by religion and therefore you cannot conclude that religion is a Bad Thing on this basis.

You then changed to this: (and I’m the one accused of shifting goalposts )

My argument is that something which promotes credulity is a bad thing

Setting this out formally:

PREMISE 1: Religion promotes credulity
PREMISE 2: Anything which promotes credulity is a Bad Thing

CONCLUSION: Religion is a Bad Thing

Premise 2 is false and your further examples do not prove otherwise, therefore you cannot conclude religion is a Bad Thing on this basis.

If you can set your arguments out in a valid structure, with true premises that support your conclusion ‘religion is a Bad Thing’ in a way that I have not yet considered, please do so. Otherwise you are left with the following:

PREMISE: Religion is a Bad Thing

CONCLUSION: Religion is a Bad Thing

This is, of course, not a logical argument and is merely a statement of your opinion.

[Isis]

It's important that children feel warm and loved and white lies and fairy tales told to make childhood more enjoyable are perfectly OK. As long as eventually they are told the truth. (Marriage is not always happy ever after, monsters aren't always defeated, some problems are insurmountable, etc.) Religion, of course extends the fairy tales into adulthood, which can have a tremendously corrosive effect.

Children grow out of this fairy tale world when they are ready. As long as they are causing no harm to other people, adults should be left to do the same as far as their religious beliefs are concerned. Some will never be ready to grow out of it but that is their own choice. The effects can be corrosive or they can be completely harmless.

But the price of that happiness and coping is ...{irrelevant smoke-screen about stem cell research}...

You’ve fallen into your usual bad habit of generalisation - ‘here’s a bad thing about religion so religion is all bad’.

This is a moral and ethical issue, which has nothing to do with our argument about credulity. Religious leaders are entitled to hold their opinions and state their opinions on this topic as much as anyone else. As long as they alone do not have the power to make the final decisions, why should we be unduly concerned?

In the meantime, any rational discussion of the moral and ethical issues involved is simply drowned out by the shrieks of outrage from the faith heads.

Some people objected to nuclear weapons, others didn’t. Some people objected to the poll tax, others didn’t. Some people objected to cruise missiles at Greenham Common, others didn’t. What’s objectionable about the fact that I feel more strongly about the damage caused by religion than you do?

What’s objectionable about these people feeling more strongly about this issue than other people?

[Isis]

There are arguments - some atheists will make them - that the bad of religion is outweighed by the good of religion...However, why do you say I have to prove that a majority of religions people are harmful to society? By that token you can't disapprove of pedophilia until you prove that the majority of pedophiles are a danger to society. Most people would accept that the few dangerous ones there are a quite sufficient for us to disapprove of them in general.

This is another example of a poor analogy.

Religion has positive and negative attributes. Some religious people contribute positively to society while some religious people harm society. Any instances of harm are unacceptable and must be dealt with but assessing whether religion can be declared overall bad, good or indifferent reasonably requires assessing the balance between bad and good.

Bad > Good => Religion is a Bad Thing
Good > Bad => Religion is a Good Thing
Bad = Good => Religion is a Neutral Thing

I can’t see any reasonable objection to requiring proof of Bad outweighing Good to accept your conclusion religion is overall bad (although if you can't find the proof, the Tarzan thing WILL probably work just as well )

Paedophilia on the other hand does not have positive or negative attributes that can be weighed up. It is by definition a perversion and a disorder and is all bad. All paedophiles are harmful to society. No proof required.

[Dreadful Scathe]

You started with this:

religion promotes credulity,
that credulity leads to a lot of undesirable results,
and that therefore religion is a bad thing generally.

You then changed to this: (and I’m the one accused of shifting goalposts )

My argument is that something which promotes credulity is a bad thing

hmmm... religion promotes credulity (not good) therefore religion is generally bad...

he stated it twice and even simplified it for you the second time...

...what part of this are you not understanding ?

[Isis]

...what part of this are you not understanding ?

I'm understanding it, I'm just not agreeing with it. Keep up.

[Tiger Feet]

hmmm... religion promotes credulity (not good) therefore religion is generally bad...

he stated it twice and even simplified it for you the second time...

...what part of this are you not understanding ?

He also stated that other things promote credulity but aren't generally bad, therefore displaying the fact that it's merely his opinion and not an intelligent, logically sound conclusion.

Feel free, at any point, to actually introduce your own opinions, DS

[Dreadful Scathe]

I'm understanding it, I'm just not agreeing with it. Keep up.

This skateboard needs oiled

[Dreadful Scathe]

Feel free, at any point, to actually introduce your own opinions, DS

What? on this forum ? no way

[Isis]

hmmm... religion promotes credulity (not good) therefore religion is generally bad...

he stated it twice and even simplified it for you the second time...

...what part of this are you not understanding ?

I'm wondering if you and Barry learned formal logic and general 'anti-religion' debating techniques from

[Tiger Feet]

I'm wondering if you and Barry learned formal logic and general 'anti-religion' debating techniques from

[Dreadful Scathe]

I'm wondering if you and Barry learned formal logic and general 'anti-religion' debating techniques from

I'm not anti-religion. I'm anti-nonsense-from-Isis

[Tiger Feet]

Why do I feel as though I fell into a tag wrestling match?

I've realised why...it's because you're being 'pinned down'. Rather than giving you the opportunity to dance around the subject, you're being asked to form your argument logically and intelligently. You're being asked to accept that your hatred of religion is merely due to an opinion and not through any obvious fact that religion is a bad thing generally. You're being asked why it is that you feel so intolerant towards decent people who find their faith necessary? You said in the Happy Clappers thread that people of faith can no longer be left in peace to follow their tenets and I can't understand why anyone would find it necessary to be so intolerant. Your assertion that changing one persons' opinion will make a difference is not spreading scientific fact or enlightenment...it's just you spreading your own opinion.

[Twirly]

Sorry to hijack for a moment, but I have one for Barry...

Was walking along Oxford Street last night, and there was a chap banging on about "giving your life to God". I couldn't help but think of Barry as I heard this chap say "at least come and find out about God so that you can make an intelligent and rational decision"...

[geoff332]

I prefer to stick to the science...

It seems that the human mind is wired to believe in magic - as credulous a set of beliefs as any. And this hits our basic brain chemistry - principally dopamine. Those who see too much magic are heading towards schizophrenia. Those who see too little are moving towards depression.

The gist of the argument - as I've already made - is that forming beliefs in things without any rational foundation is a normal and functional part of human nature. Thus to suggest that religion promotes credulity entirely ignores the fact that credulity is far more basic.

I got sick of arguing it, because it's one of those things that's so well known (and fundamental) to cognitive psychology, to claim it doesn't exist is irrational. If someone chooses not to believe it, then you're wasting your time arguing with them about it. As the evidence itself points out: people will never let go of their irrational beliefs.