He is referring to all atheists who simply make rational arguments against God and dishonestly characterizing them as saying that the theist is merely name calling.
He is the only one name calling, saying that any atheist who points out the improbability of God is an "asshole". He can't point to any atheist who have every said his fake quotes. That is just the way he dishonestly characterizes anyone who even implies to a believer that God does not exist. That is why he directly compared it to when some kids merely implied that Santa did not exist. They didn't call his daughter and idiot or stupid, but in his mind they are the same thing.
Well, I decided to go to the source on this. I asked the video creator this question: Your video was shared in a recent thread and in our discussions, it has become apparent that some members have a different take on your talk than I do. Specifically, some have said that your statements should be taken to mean that atheists should never disagree with a believer (and therefore, never have a discussion with believers about faith). From my viewpoint, it seemed like you were discussing the actions of those atheists who make it their life's goal to deconvert every believer. Which viewpoint is correct? Or are both wrong?
I have not received an answer yet but when I do I will let you know. I still think it is incorrect to state he is referring to all atheists. And you will need to explain to me what you mean by”dishonestly characterizing them as saying the theist is merely name calling”. What does a theist have to do with how he is characterizing atheists?
Ironically, the very idea held by most theists that atheists will not go to heaven for being atheist is nothing other than a form of name calling and an attack on atheists moral character.
Why would it be an attack to say that atheists will not go to heaven? You don't believe heaven exists so it has no effect as far as you are concerned – and even if they thought it did, atheists make it very clear that they want no part of it.
You are equating morality and faith but they are two entirely separate things. There are a lot of very moral people in the world who don't have faith – and a lot of believers whose morality is very questionable (which is another subject altogether, but I am just including that so you don't think I am claiming that all believers are of good moral character).
To argue is what all rational scientific exchanges are. It is also what it means to present an evidence based case in court.
You are perfectly free to use an alternate definition for argument, but my discussion is based on the primary definition in the dictionary. If we are using different meanings for the word then we are just talking past each other and it is a waste of time and electrons.
(My words) His point seemed to be that atheists should not make it their life's mission to deconvert every believer.
This proves your are doing the same thing he is, you are equating merely trying to convince believers with a rational argument ("deconverting" them) with calling them "stupid". What is wrong with pointing out to people that they are incorrect about basic facts of reality or that the method they use to arrive at these conclusions are the opposite of rational thought? Should we not try to correct wrong beliefs about Global Warming because the believer might feel bad about being wrong? Not only is trying to promote rational thinking and accurate knowledge never wrong, it is an act of ethical compassion. Beliefs determine actions and actions impact others. Correcting wrong beliefs is essential to protecting everyone, including the believer, from the inherent harms of both incorrect assumptions and irrational methods of arriving at those assumptions.
His point is that theists are so emotionally weak that they cannot handle knowing the truth, which makes them like little children who learn that Santa is not real. Heck, even his view of children is condescending. Most kids are not upset at all when learning about Santa and those that are get over it very quickly.
We will still need to know his intent before you can say that he means all discussions. Discussion is a good thing, in my opinion. What is not good is denigrating someone simply because they are a believer. You seem to be fixated on the idea that anyone who has faith can't possibly be rational or believe in the scientific method – and that is wrong. We are not clones of Ken Ham marching in lockstep. You would probably be amazed at how many believers are admirers of scientists and their work. I am one of them. As for being rational, let me just say that rationality is not determined by whether someone is a believer or not; there are people on both sides that no one would consider rational.
As for theists not being able to handle the truth – what truth are you meaning? Are you talking about science, or are you talking about the existence of God? I have already covered the scientific truth statement, and I will repeat something that I have said before about God – I can't prove He exists, but you can't prove He doesn't either. There is no scientific method that can prove or disprove the existence of God.
Finally, as for kids and Santa – do you have children? The video creator is discussing his 4 year old daughter. At that age, if they are abruptly informed that Santa is not real they are typically devastated and do not “get over it” easily. Once they get a little older and have developed some critical thinking skills they usually figure it out themselves – and tell their parents they know who Santa really is, and it is not a jolly fat man with a red suit. I agree with him 100% on this; no one should deliberately tell a young child that Santa is a fake. Whether or not it is wise for children to start believing in Santa is another thing altogether but usually parents don't have a great deal of control over what their child is learning from other people unless they lock them in the house and never let them watch tv or meet anyone from the outside world.
Both the Bible and Quran explicitly and repeatedly demand that everyone believes and calls for genocidal violence against all those who do not. The stories of Noah and Gomorrah are nothing but acts of genocide committed God to show his followers how infidels are to be dealt with, not to mention numerous other murderous acts by God (e.g., the slaughter of every first born son in Egypt born to any unbeliever). They explicitly demand that women be treated as inferior. Even if these stories are viewed as non-literal, that does not change their clear message promoting intolerance and authoritarian violence.
This worldview was not limited to believers. Virtually every nation and tribe held the same tenets at that time. Authoritarian rule was the norm, and violent enforcement of a nations/tribes/religions authority was typical. Forced conversion or death was the usual order of the day. Women and children were little better than slaves in their households. You probably remember that I do not believe in a literal reading of the Bible or the historical and scientific accuracy of the text as it was written by very fallible men who were not only documenting their faith but also reflecting the world as it existed at that time.
They also demand this belief be based upon faith, without evidence, which is the epitome of fascistic authoritarianism. The Bible repeatedly attacks anyone who asks for evidence, which is the whole point behind the character of Thomas (aka doubting Thomas) who Jesus says is not blessed because he needed actual evidence
Faith is believing without evidence – that is how faith in God is defined in the dictionary. Fascistic authoritarianism? True of men, but I wouldn't say that of God since if that was true of Him the world would be a lot smaller than it is as He would have destroyed most of the people currently existing. As for the Bible attacking anyone who asks for evidence, I don't see that unless you are referring to Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees when he calls them wicked for asking for a sign, and He gave that response simply because they were accusing him of being leagued with Satan. Yes, Jesus said that those who believe without seeing are blessed – but he didn't attack Thomas. He was just reminding him that he should have had as much faith in the resurrection as others did instead of believing the rumors about the body being removed from the tomb by men.
The religions built on these text very explicitly promoted these same values for centuries. The people that still hold these views are the only theists who honestly believe in the God described in those texts or by religious traditions from which most Christians and Muslims claim their spiritual heritage.
So I am not a true believer since I don't hold the views you think I should? My faith has been questioned in the past by other believers, but I have to say I am befuddled by an atheist saying I don't have true faith because I don't meet his expectation of what a theist should believe.
I am taking the Bible and the Quran and the things they clearly and repeatedly state. I am also taking the fact that objective knowledge and rational thought contradict the plausibility of God, and thus theism can only be maintained if knowledge and reason are disregarded, which is precisely why the Bible repeatedly command it. Theism (and other core religious ideas like belief in an afterlife) require maintaining beliefs that are central to one's whole worldview, yet directly contradict the principles of reasoned thought and intellectual honesty. Accepted violations of principles erode the cultural value of those principles and increase other violations. Which means it isn't possible for theism to be maintained without eroding principles of rational thought.
Again with the idea that anyone with faith can't be rational. Refer to my statement above. As for objective knowledge and rational thought contradicting the plausibility of God, let me state once again that there is no scientific method to prove or disprove His existence – and there are a lot of things that were not considered plausible in the past that exist today so I don't consider that to be a particularly strong point for your case. Faith and science are two entirely separate things; one is intangible and one is tangible. The intangible cannot be physically measured or tested, like love and faith. And for those of us not of the fundamentalist right wing, there is no contradiction between faith and science since they are not concerned with the same thing.
Always has been and still very much the case. Religion ruled the Western hemisphere and at its most powerful, when it controlled most governments, we had the Dark Ages when reason and science were stifled access to the knowledge and pro-rationality of the ancient Greeks prohibited. Those that dared question religion with reason were tortured and killed (which is what both the witch trials and the Inquisition were about). This was not confined to some small minority of extremists but was standard throughout the Christian controlled world. The reason it always will be the case is that the values of anti-reason, intolerance and authoritarian force are the core values that define the God of Abraham in all founding religious texts and are the main motives behind why monotheism has been embraced by rulers and served as such an effective tool in authoritarian control.
It is no coincidence that within a century of the Enlightenment, which was the dawn of secularism and decline of religious control, science and technology boomed and advanced more in a century than in all of human history combined. And as society becomes more secular the rate of progress increases exponentially. And the Islamic world has fallen drastically behind in scientific contributions as a direct result of a lack of secularization and continued control by monotheistic religion. For the same reason, it has also remained behind and retained the medieval values of extreme sexism and violent intolerance of doubters.
The entire reason that people identifying as Christians today are more embracing of science and modern morality is because they exist within a larger non-religious secular context that has forced from the outside changes within Christianity that in 15 centuries of its own dominance did not occur.
But the data shows that most of the Christians that are more accepting of science and pluralistic morality are in every way less Christian, meaning they have more doubts that God actually exists, they almost never read the Bible or attend church, and they don't view their religion as being very important to the daily lives. You want to call these people non-extremists, but by any reasonable definition they simply are barely religious except in a superficial label they were given by birth.
Today in modern western nations how strongly one believes in God predicts rejection of numerous scientific facts related to evolution, climate change, homosexuality, etc.. What you want to dismiss as merely "right-wing" religion is actually just sincere religion rather than the near-agnostic pseudo-religion that characterizes most liberals and science-minded people who still hold onto the "Christian" label.
Don't know that I would consider the ancient Greeks such models of rationality. They were polytheists who thought they had the mandate of their gods to spread their rule by force after making the appropriate sacrifices. Monotheism was a rarity and the typical religion in ancient Greece had multiple temples which were each devoted to one of their gods. Their governments varied wildly depending on the city-state of your residence. They were superb mathematicians though – so apparently their gods did not cause them to lose the ability to reason.
The Enlightenment owes its progress to the ancient Islamic scholars who not only translated ancient Greek math and science texts but expanded on them by proposing new theorems and using rigorous proofs on them. This continued through the 14th century under an Islamic government and caliphs who not only did not stifle them, they encouraged the development of academies for scholars. When the Dark Ages in Europe ended, these works by Islamic scholars were translated and used in the new educational system established by the Catholic church for their clerics. It spread from there.
It is a true shame that the Islamic countries fell back into the old ways of fanatic leaders, constant war and forcible conversion to fundamentalist Islam or death.
I find it very curious that you insist anyone who acknowledges the importance of science and does not want to live in a theocracy is less a believer and more a nominal Christian. I won't say that I am at church every time the doors are open, but I do attend as much as I can. I am active in several areas including working in the church office, helping in our Vacation Bible School, and singing in our seasonal cantatas plus providing special music. I study the Bible regularly using several versions for comparison and commentaries for expanded information. Religion is not important to me since that is just a man made construct, but my faith is part of my daily life. My friends would tell you just about the same thing, yet you think that we have a pseudo-religion.
I think the theory of evolution is just that – a theory. It is not proven. But on the other hand, I don't think it is either unbiblical or an impossibility either. Climate change is a fact of life. I think that the people on both the far left and far right of the spectrum are overstating/understating the impact of humans on climate change, and it is a scientific fact that even before people filled the world there were periods of dramatic climate changes. I don't think homosexuality is a choice; it is biological. I am still thinking about transgender individuals and have not come to a decision one way or another but I am appalled at the way they are treated in some cases. And as far as politics are concerned – I am a Constitutionalist, leaning Libertarian. I think the government has far overreached its constitutional limits. But I have also never voted a straight ticket in my life. The only parties that I can remember never voting for are the Green Party, the Labor Party and the Communist Party; they are a little out there for my tastes.
While most conservative Christians reject evolution, 1 in 3 Catholics also reject evolution, and they are the more devout Catholics who are confident in their faith and attend Church regularly. And mainstream Catholicism is still grotesquely homophobic and sexist.
The same holds when comparing averages between states within the US. The higher the percentage of people in a state or a nation that are devoutly religious, the less the policies of those states promote and incorporate scientific knowledge and the less their elected leaders support scientific funding and education. The anti-science of the GOP is directly due to the greater religiosity of the GOP.
Non-believers are 3 times as likely to be Democrats than Republicans. And the believers who are Dems are mostly Hispanics and blacks who often would prefer the anti-science stance of the GOP but cannot support the GOP due to its racism and disdain for the poor.
It is also why scientists lean Dem 4 to 1 over GOP,
because non-believers are 10 time more common among scientists than the general population. Plus, the longer a scientists has been practicing science the less likely they are to be a theist. It drops from 42% to just 28% over the lifespan of scientists. That's because most scientists were born into theists families and raised as theists, but as they learn more about science and better develop their scientific thinking skills they can longer maintain the delusion that any kind of God is plausible.
In fact,
this study found a strong negative correlation between how religious people were in each state and the number of scientific-based innovations per capita reflected by patents and trademarks. They controlled for population size, average education level, and gross state product (GDP per state). They also found the same relationship when comparing countries with the added control of differences in trademark protection policies.
Negative views of homosexuality are virtually always based in anti-scientific ideas that it is a choice and rejection of the science showing strong biological basis.
84% of Americans who think that homosexuality should be actively discouraged (which inherently assumes it is a choice) are "certain" that God exists, whereas Americans that are uncertain or don't believe in God are 3 more likely to think homosexuality should be accepted rather than discouraged. The same hold when you compare people who say their religion is "very important in my life" versus those who don't. While many of these accepting people technically identify as some form as theist, these data show that they are less theistic and less religious and that is what predicts which "theists" hold pro-science and more tolerant views.
I will admit to having an innate distrust of polls, surveys and studies. There are just too many ways for individual participants to not answer truthfully because they want to be perceived as someone other than who they actually are and the people conducting them to sway a question to fit preconceptions.
And broken clocks are correct twice per day, but their faulty inner workings make them wrong most of the time.
The Jesuits "educated" native people's around the world as a means of colonizing and Christianizing them on behalf of the Church. The Catholic Church controlled education and Universities throughout the Middle Ages and into the 18th century. They didn't do this for the sake of science, but in order to control it and ensure it supported religious positions.
It does not invalidate their scientific studies or promotion of education simply because they did it for their faith. The bottom line is that the Jesuits have a reputation for excellence in both science and education; not just among believers but also the broader scientific and educational communities.
Also, Mathematics is not science. It does not seek explanations for the natural world or the nature of humankind, thus it does not run counter to a religious use of faith and authority to determine answers to those questions. Similarly much of early science merely sought to describe the predictable regularities in nature rather than explain them or the deviations from regularities. As such, there was much less potential conflict with religious assumptions than there is for modern explanatory science.
Mathematics is classified as a formal science. What you are discussing is empirical science. But keep in mind that a large part of empirical science would never be provable without mathematics. The two are intertwined to a degree that it is almost impossible to state without reservations that math is not a science.
The Church sought to use the mathematical descriptions of nature's regularities to support religious doctrine. They used an educated authority to control and limit the intellectual development of the public. They aggressively eliminated all public schooling not controlled by the Church and ensured that most people remained illiterate. They murdered people who tried to translate the Bible into regional languages. A Bible reading public would mean Christians might discover the total lack of Biblical support for the the Church and papacy, or the countless irrational contradictions in the Bible.
Yes, it happened. I will not deny it. But the same thing happened in slave days and the start of the Industrial Revolution – keep the slaves/workers ignorant and firmly under control. And before you bring it up, you do realize that not all slave owners were basing their treatment of other races on biblical grounds due to being religious? For many of them it was simply a matter of believing that they were personally superior to those they enslaved.
The Protestant reformation was a reaction against the Church's control of the Christian religious and its use of "scholarship" by the privileges learned class to keep the masses down and away from any real understanding of even the Bible itself. But even thought protestants sought to increase literacy solely to allow people to read the Bible (and treat it as the sole source of all true knowledge), they were also rabidly anti-intellectual and attacked the Church for trying to use science to inform theology. The father of Protestantism, Martin Luther said “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
Nice quote, but not exactly correct or in context. The actual Martin Luther quote came from a book called “The Table Talk” written after his death by his students, from notes taken during his lectures and discussions. It is in the chapter titled “Of Baptism” and was intended to refute the Anabaptist stance against infant baptism. This is the full quote from the book:
“The anabaptists pretend that children, not as yet having reason, ought not to receive baptism. I answer: That reason in no way contributes to faith. Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. If God can communicate the Holy Ghost to grown persons, he can, a fortiori, communicate it to young children. Faith comes of the Word of God, when this is heard; little children hear that Word when they receive baptism, and therewith they receive also faith.”
So his intent with this was to justify his continued support of infant baptism. He considered the Anabaptists heretical for demanding that baptism only be done after a person was mature enough to have made an informed choice about faith.
This anti-intellectualism inherent to Protestantism flourished and dominated in the rise of the many protestant sects in the US. It can be found in the sermons of the most popular preachers of the first and second "Great Awakenings", which were a rejection of the more secular skeptical-rationalism of the Enlightenment. Few Americans belonged to a church in the early 1700s. Most modern family ties to various sects were created during these "Awakeningse", in which the sects competed for followers by showing how strongly they embraced Martin Luther's anti-intellectualism. The lawyer who defended Tennessee's ant-evolution law in the Scopes tril, William Jennings Bryan, was an extremely popular preacher among Protestants who elected him to Congress and twice nominated him for President. He repeatedly attacked science and education saying "It would be better to destroy every other book ever written, and save just the first three verses of Genesis."
Immigrants to this country came in groups with shared values which established communities. Home churches were the rule rather than the exception at that time due to transportation issues and lack of funds or time to build actual churches since the largest part of their life was spent simply trying to survive. By the time of the first “Great Awakening” in the mid – 1700's, things had gotten a little easier as they were firmly established so a church building became an important part of their life. Each church, naturally, reflected the values of that community. There were exceptions to the late building of churches, of course; if I recall correctly, the first Baptist church in the Americas was built in the early to mid 1600's. But that was due to the fact that the particular group of immigrants which built it came here strictly because of religious freedom issues and the church building was of primary importance to them.
William Jennings Bryan was not a preacher. He was a Presbyterian elder which is a lay person in the church. He had a law degree so he didn't consider all education a bad thing, and funny enough his wife was also a lawyer which was fairly uncommon at the time. They practiced law together. He was actually nominated three times for President – in 1896, 1900 and 1908. After the last presidential run he made his living lobbying, traveling on the speaking circuit and publishing a magazine interrupted only by serving and failing miserably as Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson during WWI. Then came the Scopes trial.
He was apparently a very gifted speaker and made a very good living doing that. But as shown during the Scopes trial, he did not make much of an attempt to learn anything about his biblical beliefs or how to justify them – which is very strange for a lawyer who typically makes their living researching everything they can about a case or client. But he was apparently persuasive enough to garner a following that netted him a comfortable life. This is not someone I would hold up as a shining example of a believer.
I'm glad you are not a theocrat, but that makes you at odds with most Christians throughout history and with the Bible which is clearly pro-theocracy and very pro-authoritarian fascism. Romans 13 "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities"
I am not sure how you see the Bible as pro-theocracy when the overwhelming majority of governments at that time were not run by believers. We have already discussed my view on God and authoritarian fascism. All this passage of scripture is saying is that whoever is in power at that time would be there because God allowed it, and believers should not be lawbreakers because God does not approve of that. This admonition was necessary because some of the believers at that time were claiming that their lawless behavior (stealing from the government, not paying taxes etc) was approved by God since the government was not Christian in nature.
And I am still waiting for you show me where I stated I was opposed to reasons or explanations.
Sorry for the delay again replying to this; my client base is intent on keeping me busy and I don't like to half-answer someone.
Ruth
</end derail>
