Atheists becoming more vocal and outspoken

[DrZoidberg]

BTW, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating going back to the old timey religion and God. I think the road to secularism is a one way process.

My point is ONLY that religion is a collection of stuff, most of which is great. Whether we are consciously aware of this or not is another matter. But if you're attacking religion broadly and somebody needs the structure religion gives to their lives to be fulfilled and happy, your atheistic crusade is doomed to failure. It's not that I want this crusade to fail. I'm firmly on team atheist. But I think it's smarter to leave attacking the belief in God last, and go after the easier stuff in religion first. Faith in God, is after all the least interesting thing about Christianity. Obviously. Because God doesn't exist. If something that doesn't exist can make somebody happy, then it's obviously not the important thing in their lives. It's the other stuff. And once those have all been replaced by secular alternatives we won't need to talk anybody out of believing in God. They'll all just quietly forget why they ever believed in God to begin with.

 

[rousseau]

BTW, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating going back to the old timey religion and God. I think the road to secularism is a one way process.

My point is ONLY that religion is a collection of stuff, most of which is great. Whether we are consciously aware of this or not is another matter. But if you're attacking religion broadly and somebody needs the structure religion gives to their lives to be fulfilled and happy, your atheistic crusade is doomed to failure. It's not that I want this crusade to fail. I'm firmly on theam atheist. But I think it's smarter to leave attacking the belief in God last, and go after the easier stuff first. Faith in God, is after all the least interesting thing about Christianity. Obviously. Because God doesn't exist. If something that doesn't exist can make somebody happy, then it's obviously not the important thing in their lives. It's the other stuff

I mostly agree with this, although I wonder - if we should attack faith in God last, what is the easier stuff you think we should approach first? That's a genuine question.

To me it seems like it's faith in God that holds the whole shebang together, and gives the pretense for the other aspects. In the same way Christmas/Easter give secular people a 'reason' to get together a couple times a year, religion gives communities a kind of empty shell to bond around.

Once religion is gone, what even could fill that vacuum in the same way?

 

[DrZoidberg]

How little or far should we atheists (or nontheists, skeptics, whatever) go in trying to advance our views? Should we hold more of a “live and let live” attitude or be more outspoken and vocal in criticizing religion in the public sphere?

I'm all for the "live and let live" idea but only if it is mutual. Any religious group attempting to force their beliefs on others through law or even through personal actions need to be openly opposed.

For example, I have no problem with the Amish who are happy to practice their rather weird (to me) beliefs without imposing it on others unwilling to accept those beliefs.

Exactly this.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the psychological need for religion, and how it can be life giving. The problem is that these people let their beliefs carry over into real material things like abortion, end of life etc etc.

But I think you are conflating things. If somebody's main reason for going to church is the community. That's what fills their psychological need. The fact that we need to be part of a community to be happy is a pretty uncontroversial belief. That belief has no impact on their views on abortion and end of life etc.

The Christian belief in God is just a fetish. I think it's completely arbitrary. God doesn't do shit for their emotional needs and psychological well being. Obviously. Since God is imaginary. The magic sauce is the shared belief in God. It's the sharing that fulfils their emotional needs.

That's why we get just the same degree of fanaticism among environmentalists as among Christians. Eco terrorism is a real thing.

So just ditching God doesn't mean all these people will suddenly start being good people are let us abort babies as we please.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Once religion is gone, what even could fill that vacuum in the same way?

Sweden replaced Christianity with Socialism. We replaced each Christian institution with a socialist equivalent. Which worked fine up until the fall of the USSR and Socialism going out of fashion (1990'ies). So there's that. BTW, not my theory. There's been loads of academic papers written on this. It's a well studied subject. It's what actually happened.

Post modernist third wave feminism seems to fill the same kind of role religion did. Complete with ideas of Heaven (ie gender equal utopia) and a Satan (the patriarchy) to rally against. I think environmentalism is similar. Also a clear vision of utopia and a shared enemy to rally against. Those are viable candidates. And sports of course. Utopia is to reign supreme and a clear shared enemy to rally against. Either as a spectator, or more stuff like Crossfit. I also get a religious vibe from libertarians and Bit Coin fanatics.

Do we have any more popular secular religions we've replaced theistic religion with? I'm not talking hypothetical religions. But ones we've actually got now and which are popular?

 

[rousseau]

Once religion is gone, what even could fill that vacuum in the same way?

Sweden replaced Christianity with Socialism. We replaced each Christian institution with a socialist equivalent. Which worked fine up until the fall of the USSR and Socialism going out of fashion (1990'ies). So there's that. BTW, not my theory. There's been loads of academic papers written on this. It's a well studied subject. It's what actually happened.

Post modernist third wave feminism seems to fill the same kind of role religion did. Complete with ideas of Heaven (ie gender equal utopia) and a Satan (the patriarchy) to rally against. I think environmentalism is similar. Also a clear vision of utopia and a shared enemy to rally against. Those are viable candidates. And sports of course. Utopia is to reign supreme and a clear shared enemy to rally against. Either as a spectator, or more stuff like Crossfit. I also get a religious vibe from libertarians and Bit Coin fanatics.

Do we have any more popular secular religions we've replaced theistic religion with? I'm not talking hypothetical religions. But ones we've actually got now and which are popular?

Yea that makes sense. Both socialism and feminism seem to have that same, cult-like quality of religion. I'd say that's what's replaced religion in Canada, too, at least for those on the left. Most of those I know on the right are still religious, and if not their religion is the economy and big business, which will somehow be their savior.

At the end of the day most people have a need to assuage their cognitive dissonance about the world, in one way or another.

 

[Brian63]

I maintain that Christian beliefs are just fetishes.

They are more than that. They are cultural memes which have survived and thrived because they have in-built means of reproducing themselves. If every person grew up in a completely secular household and never heard of Christianity (or any other religion), fewer would find those religions to be worthwhile and useful to their lives. It is through indoctrination of children, association with tribalism, preying upon our psychological needs and fears, use of groupthink tactics, etc. that these religions persist and even dominate so much of our world. The beliefs in the doctrines become one of many key components in all of that. The beliefs cannot be ignored or dismissed as a secondary effect. They are one of the drivers.

Saying that you like somebody when you don't isn't being polite at all. It's disingenuous, and just comes across as manipulative.

Similarly, telling someone that you want to have a “civil conversation” with them while also implying that they are brainwashed and dishonest is disingenuous and manipulative. Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

Either way... life is a lot more pleasant if we aren't being defensive.

Why do you keep attributing that to me? You have been demeaning, sarcastic, insulting, offending, in many of your posts and now you are trying to pile on and say that the target is “being defensive” by responding in kind and they should not be so? What should a person do in that case---just let you insult them, and let you get away with it? You should be held accountable for your actions.

I haven't seen this as an argument (although we have made arguments). I've seen this as two people picking each others brains. To have our ideas tested. I think it's fun and I've enjoyed this conversation so far.

Online trolls may also enjoy their exchanges with people who they disagree with. Saying that you have enjoyed an exchange is not any kind of gesture of goodwill, it just means that you have enjoyed the exchange in itself. You have made no gestures of kindness or extended any olive branches (at least sincerely), but you have been very demeaning, sarcastic, insulting, and offending---then tried to negatively characterize me as being defensive as a reaction to your being offensive. Stop the phony-hero game, DrZoidberg. Admit you have been sarcastic, insulting, etc. Do not deny it, minimize it, equivocate over it, fake apologize for it, etc. Just admit it. That would be at least something close to a first step.

When I take what you say and reformulate it in my own words, it's to better understand your position. That's not an attempt to make a straw man. If you don't agree with how I've phrased it... great. Then I was perhaps wrong? Then explain how I was wrong. But I've yet to see this.

Re-read this thread for many examples. See the post below as well. I have been reposting it, as you attributed a position to me that I never held, never advocated, never argued for. You in turn have not cited a source or a quote from me advocating such views. The burden is on you to cite your sources, not for me to cite your (non-existent) sources for you.

I keep showing how you are completely hung up…

If you really were aiming to have a “civil conversation” like you had stated earlier you were, there are better ways of displaying goodwill than using phrases like the above. You are phony, DrZoidberg. No, I am not being defensive. You are being offensive, whether intentionally or unintentionally I do not know, but you are not succeeding either. Do not try to pin it on anyone but yourself.

…about the belief in religion and focused on only that, and then you keep saying that you're not, and then repeat the same thing again. This makes me feel that you don't understand the argument I'm making.

I have not just kept saying that I am not, I have also demonstrated it. Repeatedly throughout this thread I have maintained that religion is not merely a set of beliefs---it is much more, but that beliefs are one important component of it. Religions manifest the way they do partly because of the ways our brains are hardwired (as a result of our evolutionary past), partly because of the immediate and local surrounding cultures and social circles we are each enveloped in, partly because of the individual psychological and emotional needs.

In this thread, I have never, ever said that religions are completely or primarily about beliefs. That does not at all reflect my views on the matter. My point in this thread was that it is one of many important components. When atheists say (essentially) that we should not devote any attention to the beliefs, or ignore them, or only concern ourselves when religious beliefs are imposed on us through politics or law, etc. then that is the attitude that is misguided and outdated (it never was in-date to begin with). We should try to absolve religion as much as possible, especially the worst of them, and part of that process requires that we be more openly critical of the beliefs. Simultaneously, we should also try to fix the other contributing factors, such as economic and political and tribalistic influences. I do not hold any strong positions on how to achieve those satisfactorily, I do know though that we should simultaneously be vocal and outspoken about the role that bad beliefs play in our world, and not let them go unchallenged.

Perhaps you feel that I am making a straw man of your argument because I've cut to the core of your arguments and it doesn't hold up?

DrZoidberg, you have demonstrated a very poor track record of even identifying what my beliefs are. Do not pretend that you have any competence in now attributing feelings to me for why I hold those beliefs, which I actually do not even hold in the first place.

I think preaching to people in need and spiritual anguish is a dick move, and most likely counter productive.

What relevance does this red herring (perhaps a strawman) have? Nobody here has advocated preaching, it is not my position that atheists should preach. What my position actually is---please read carefully---is that each and every one of the contributing factors to those who feel such anguish should be addressed. None of them should be ignored. That may include family troubles they have, financial difficulties, physical health problems, political frustrations, etc. If it is also partly driven by bad religious beliefs, then those bad religious beliefs also need to be openly discussed and criticized. Perhaps by avoiding the real etiologies of their pain, it is your own approach that would be futile, or even counterproductive?

…give me some examples of core religious activities which you think don't stem from their beliefs?

No, since that is not a position I hold to begin with. It is yet again another strawmen you are attributing to me, not my real view. I do not think any activity can be so cleanly isolated and that we can say “don’t stem” from other beliefs. All our beliefs, all our activities, all our decisions, all our values, all our lifestyles are interconnected with each other in a tight network. None exist in a vacuum.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

They are more than that.

This is testable. Just list every benefit the Christian gains from their religion. A community. Meaning of life. Support in times of need. A way to have an outlet to our inborn need to help others. A network from which to find work. A set of daily and weekly rituals. Something to focus on when meditating. I'm sure there's loads of things I've missed. But I think this is the big ones. None of these hinge on the belief in God. They certainly don't hinge on the existence of God... Since... you know... God doesn't exist, and Christianity is chugging along just fine.

As a thought experiment, remove God, and see what in the Christian religion is unsustainable. I think there's nothing. I think Christianity would be the same even without a belief in God. If that's the case, then God is nothing but an empty fetish.

BTW, not my theory. This is from Jürgen Habermas. A sociologist who studied religion as a purely functional activity. Ie, seeing religion as a useful tool. He studied what problems it was solving. His stance in this study was that God obviously doesn't exist. But God is still useful anyway.

Also... there's plenty of secular Christians. One of my friends now is married to a Christian. He's an atheist. But he still goes to church. My ex wife was Jewish. Her family had been atheists for generations. Still all very Jewish. Because of all the atheistic religious people in the world, Christianity cannot hinge on faith alone. Or even primarily.

They are cultural memes which have survived and thrived because they have in-built means of reproducing themselves. If every person grew up in a completely secular household and never heard of Christianity (or any other religion), fewer would find those religions to be worthwhile and useful to their lives. It is through indoctrination of children, association with tribalism, preying upon our psychological needs and fears, use of groupthink tactics, etc. that these religions persist and even dominate so much of our world. The beliefs in the doctrines become one of many key components in all of that. The beliefs cannot be ignored or dismissed as a secondary effect. They are one of the drivers.

This is only the method of transmission. This cannot be the reason Christians stay Christian. If this is all Christianity is, no way in hell would it survive.

Similarly, telling someone that you want to have a “civil conversation” with them while also implying that they are brainwashed and dishonest is disingenuous and manipulative. Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

I didn't say you were brainwashed. You said that Christians were brainwashed. I shifted perspective and formulated the same thing but seen from the Christian perspective. It's a handy philosophical tool. Can the thing you're saying about others, also be applied to you? That's why I asked if you're not also brainwashed.

I keep showing how you are completely hung up…

If you really were aiming to have a “civil conversation” like you had stated earlier you were, there are better ways of displaying goodwill than using phrases like the above. You are phony, DrZoidberg. No, I am not being defensive. You are being offensive, whether intentionally or unintentionally I do not know, but you are not succeeding either. Do not try to pin it on anyone but yourself.

So you're not completely hung up on religious belief?

…about the belief in religion and focused on only that, and then you keep saying that you're not, and then repeat the same thing again. This makes me feel that you don't understand the argument I'm making.

I have not just kept saying that I am not, I have also demonstrated it. Repeatedly throughout this thread I have maintained that religion is not merely a set of beliefs---it is much more, but that beliefs are one important component of it. Religions manifest the way they do partly because of the ways our brains are hardwired (as a result of our evolutionary past), partly because of the immediate and local surrounding cultures and social circles we are each enveloped in, partly because of the individual psychological and emotional needs.

But it's still just belief!!!! You're listing ways with which we can be manipulated through belief, due to how are brains are hardwired. I've yet seen you mention anything that religion does for us that isn't belief, except in the most abstract of ways. If you want to convince me you're not completely hung up on belief... try being concrete. How isn't religion only about belief?

In this thread, I have never, ever said that religions are completely or primarily about beliefs. That does not at all reflect my views on the matter. My point in this thread was that it is one of many important components. When atheists say (essentially) that we should not devote any attention to the beliefs, or ignore them, or only concern ourselves when religious beliefs are imposed on us through politics or law, etc. then that is the attitude that is misguided and outdated (it never was in-date to begin with). We should try to absolve religion as much as possible, especially the worst of them, and part of that process requires that we be more openly critical of the beliefs. Simultaneously, we should also try to fix the other contributing factors, such as economic and political and tribalistic influences. I do not hold any strong positions on how to achieve those satisfactorily, I do know though that we should simultaneously be vocal and outspoken about the role that bad beliefs play in our world, and not let them go unchallenged.

This is too abstract of a statement to be meaningful. I don't know what you mean by this.

I think preaching to people in need and spiritual anguish is a dick move, and most likely counter productive.

What relevance does this red herring (perhaps a strawman) have? Nobody here has advocated preaching, it is not my position that atheists should preach. What my position actually is---please read carefully---is that each and every one of the contributing factors to those who feel such anguish should be addressed. None of them should be ignored. That may include family troubles they have, financial difficulties, physical health problems, political frustrations, etc. If it is also partly driven by bad religious beliefs, then those bad religious beliefs also need to be openly discussed and criticized. Perhaps by avoiding the real etiologies of their pain, it is your own approach that would be futile, or even counterproductive?

If you're trying to talk people out of their beliefs, you are preaching. And just like the article you posted said, people are great at clinging to beliefs, especially when they're under attack. So when you are helping homeless people, why not skip trying to convince them of anything? Why not just help them. After all... it is what they actually need. Unless of course the goal isn't to help them, but to preach atheism... in which case you can't really cling to the idea that you had no ulterior preachy motive.

…give me some examples of core religious activities which you think don't stem from their beliefs?

No, since that is not a position I hold to begin with. It is yet again another strawmen you are attributing to me, not my real view. I do not think any activity can be so cleanly isolated and that we can say “don’t stem” from other beliefs. All our beliefs, all our activities, all our decisions, all our values, all our lifestyles are interconnected with each other in a tight network. None exist in a vacuum.

I think you've just proven my point. I guess there were no straw men to be found in this thread.

I think your project is doomed.

 

[Brian63]

Just list every benefit the Christian gains from their religion. A community. Meaning of life. Support in times of need. A way to have an outlet to our inborn need to help others. A network from which to find work. A set of daily and weekly rituals. Something to focus on when meditating. I'm sure there's loads of things I've missed. But I think this is the big ones. None of these hinge on the belief in God.

Again, it has never been my position and never been my argument that those “hinge” on the existence of God. You keep putting your own words into my mouth and then rebutting your strawmen. All of those benefits you list “hinge” on a variety of factors---a belief in God aids them still. It is not entirely dependent or “hinging” on God, but they do provide sustenance for each other.

This is only the method of transmission.

No, those are also methods of survival of a meme, not just transmission of it. When a child is indoctrinated into Christianity, it sticks with them for at least some time. Even if they grow up and never have children and live a completely isolated life out in a remote cabin without any other human interaction, the Christian beliefs would still have an effect on their life. It is not only the transmission of memes that religion influences, it is the present survival of them.

This cannot be the reason Christians stay Christian. If this is all Christianity is, no way in hell would it survive.

Noted that you merely assert this on your own expertise. You did not demonstrate it or provide any justification for it.

So you're not completely hung up on religious belief?

Never have been. It is one facet of the human mind that I find fascinating, but I also enjoy studying neuroscience in general. You keep saying that I am “hung up” on religious belief, but that is more of a rhetorical ploy than an accurate assessment.

If you want to convince me you're not completely hung up on belief... try being concrete. How isn't religion only about belief?

I have stated numerous times in this thread that it also provides for other emotional and social and psychological needs. You correctly stated above a list of other functions that they serve. I agree with your list. So you can stop asking that question. Look to your own list for the answer. Good job on that.

If you're trying to talk people out of their beliefs, you are preaching.

Tell that to evolutionary scientists who publicly argue and debate creationists, for example. When people have heart-to-heart conversations with loved ones about how their current beliefs forbidding gay marriage are harming others around them without justification, should that be considered preaching? Experts in scientific fields try to demonstrate that one idea or hypothesis is better validated than alternatives, and that can consist of “talking to people out of their beliefs.” You are using the word “preaching” rather carelessly.

And just like the article you posted said, people are great at clinging to beliefs, especially when they're under attack. So when you are helping homeless people, why not skip trying to convince them of anything? Why not just help them.

Because (as the article explicitly stated) it is difficult to get people to change their beliefs, but not impossible. Those are 2 very different concepts. I have changed my own beliefs, especially ~20 years ago when I was new to atheist views, in part by seeing other atheists debate theists and expose the flaws in their arguments. In the years since I have read, seen and heard countless stories of people describing how they were (in part) willing to change their views because others had shown that their status quo views were flawed in some way.

If you are engaging with another person in a debate, you may not have as much an effect on that person immediately. Still, the impact can be felt other ways. Over the long-term, that individual may start to critically think more about their worldview and its shortcomings and be more willing to alter it. Other onlookers to the debate, if there are some, could do the same. Other people who are sympathetic to your viewpoint may be more inspired, confident and equipped to become more outspoken themselves by seeing you do so first. The person(s) who initially start such changes are generally going to take the brunt of the negative feedback and have to bear the highest risk. It becomes easier and easier for each successive person though, and so more would likely be willing to risk it.

I think your project is doomed.

Then your thinking is wrong. I have firsthand and secondhand experience that it has been successful. People do change their minds. Do not confuse “difficult” with “impossible.”

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Again, it has never been my position and never been my argument that those “hinge” on the existence of God. You keep putting your own words into my mouth and then rebutting your strawmen. All of those benefits you list “hinge” on a variety of factors---a belief in God aids them still. It is not entirely dependent or “hinging” on God, but they do provide sustenance for each other.

So you deny saying this?

I do not think any activity can be so cleanly isolated and that we can say “don’t stem” from other beliefs. All our beliefs, all our activities, all our decisions, all our values, all our lifestyles are interconnected with each other in a tight network. None exist in a vacuum.

If belief is central and core to Christian belief that means it cannot be removed from it without it changing the religion. So you can stop saying it's a straw man since this is something you clearly do believe. Can we move on now?

No, those are also methods of survival of a meme, not just transmission of it. When a child is indoctrinated into Christianity, it sticks with them for at least some time. Even if they grow up and never have children and live a completely isolated life out in a remote cabin without any other human interaction, the Christian beliefs would still have an effect on their life. It is not only the transmission of memes that religion influences, it is the present survival of them.

You're missing my point. Of course Christian beliefs have an impact on Christians. I never said they didn't. But Christians who hate gays aren't reaping any benefits from their religion that Christians who don't hate gays also do. The gay hate is clearly irrelevant to Christianity, even though many Christians hate gays because of their faith. That's what I mean when I say that their beliefs are irrelevant.

Even belief in God itself is irrelevant to Christianity. Christianity was born out of paganism and in paganism the gods are both seen as metaphors and real. The believer could chose freely. Strictly speaking, for the poor they were real and for the educated they were metaphors. Christianity is no different in this regard. Or could be. You don't need to think of God as literally existing to reap all the benefits Christianity can provide. Ie, God's existence is irrelevant to Christianity.

Further proof is that it took 300 years for Christianity to finally agree on how many gods Christianity should have. Gnostic Christianity was initially dominant in Egypt and they have 6000 gods. Yet, somehow Christianity survived just fine with this number whittled down to 1.

This cannot be the reason Christians stay Christian. If this is all Christianity is, no way in hell would it survive.

Noted that you merely assert this on your own expertise. You did not demonstrate it or provide any justification for it.

Well... it's a pretty safe assertion. We have a good handle on what human's psychological needs are. Unless Christianity is helping us fulfil this it's dead already. Which it isn't. So we know it's true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

So you're not completely hung up on religious belief?

Never have been. It is one facet of the human mind that I find fascinating, but I also enjoy studying neuroscience in general. You keep saying that I am “hung up” on religious belief, but that is more of a rhetorical ploy than an accurate assessment.

But now when you have admitted it, I'm hoping we can move on? See quote further up in this thread.

If you want to convince me you're not completely hung up on belief... try being concrete. How isn't religion only about belief?

I have stated numerous times in this thread that it also provides for other emotional and social and psychological needs. You correctly stated above a list of other functions that they serve. I agree with your list. So you can stop asking that question. Look to your own list for the answer. Good job on that.

But you don't think we can remove belief in God and Christianity will stay intact?

If you're trying to talk people out of their beliefs, you are preaching.

Tell that to evolutionary scientists who publicly argue and debate creationists, for example. When people have heart-to-heart conversations with loved ones about how their current beliefs forbidding gay marriage are harming others around them without justification, should that be considered preaching? Experts in scientific fields try to demonstrate that one idea or hypothesis is better validated than alternatives, and that can consist of “talking to people out of their beliefs.” You are using the word “preaching” rather carelessly.

Conflate much?

And just like the article you posted said, people are great at clinging to beliefs, especially when they're under attack. So when you are helping homeless people, why not skip trying to convince them of anything? Why not just help them.

Because (as the article explicitly stated) it is difficult to get people to change their beliefs, but not impossible. Those are 2 very different concepts. I have changed my own beliefs, especially ~20 years ago when I was new to atheist views, in part by seeing other atheists debate theists and expose the flaws in their arguments. In the years since I have read, seen and heard countless stories of people describing how they were (in part) willing to change their views because others had shown that their status quo views were flawed in some way.

If you are engaging with another person in a debate, you may not have as much an effect on that person immediately. Still, the impact can be felt other ways. Over the long-term, that individual may start to critically think more about their worldview and its shortcomings and be more willing to alter it. Other onlookers to the debate, if there are some, could do the same. Other people who are sympathetic to your viewpoint may be more inspired, confident and equipped to become more outspoken themselves by seeing you do so first. The person(s) who initially start such changes are generally going to take the brunt of the negative feedback and have to bear the highest risk. It becomes easier and easier for each successive person though, and so more would likely be willing to risk it.

I think it works the other way around. We want stuff and will adapt our world view (beliefs) to get it. When I was 16 I wanted to bang a hot girl I knew. She was a communist. So I became a communist and joined her group. After we'd had sex and the novelty wore off I stopped being a communist. I thought my beliefs were genuine. But looking back I was only in it for the pussy. I'd argue everybody is like this to a degree. If it's not pussy, it's something else. But our beliefs are rarely particularly lofty or elevated. Just look at lefties and conservatives. It's pretty easy to spot who is who just based on how they dress. So it's highly tribal.

I think your project is doomed.

Then your thinking is wrong. I have firsthand and secondhand experience that it has been successful. People do change their minds. Do not confuse “difficult” with “impossible.”

I think you're just making things unnecessarily difficult for yourself. And anybody you do "convert" with this method will of course switch to something else much quicker. Because in your method, you have no community re-enforcing the belief, and no pay off for these people other than being correct. There'll be no staying power.

I think the type of people you might convert are the type of people more artistically inclined will describe as "in their head". It's people who need to think things through before accepting. Or if we're mean, we might call these, control freaks scared of life. Most people are NOT like this. Most people lead with their feelings. These are also the fun people, the people everybody wants to be around. So whatever group manages to attract these people will be the group that grows the most. And if we need a certain type of belief to be with them, most people have no problem wearing that belief, just like they would wear an item of clothing.

That's why I'm saying that the only way that can work (other than in a limited fashion) is focus on pulling people in with the community and positive re-enforcement first, only much later talk beliefs. You know... like every religion is spread. When they evangelise they're NOT focusing on beliefs at all. It's always community first.

And since atheism is a religion like not playing tennis is a sport... the focus has to be something else than there not being a God.

That's for example what Pantheism is all about. It's people equating God with nature. People getting together to worship the universe and nature. As informed by science. That's atheistic evangelising that can actually work IMHO.

 

[Brian63]

So you deny saying this?

Yes, I deny saying the thing that you said I said, but I never actually said. If I am wrong, it is your turn to show that where I actually said it. I am not going to do your homework for you, DrZoidberg.

If belief is central and core to Christian belief that means it cannot be removed from it without it changing the religion. So you can stop saying it's a straw man since this is something you clearly do believe. Can we move on now?

Yes, if you recognize that belief is one of several different core influences on Christianity. I have never held the position and never advocated the position that belief is the one-and-only core influence of Christianity. It is one of many core influences. If you understand that distinction now, then yes, let’s move past that point.

But Christians who hate gays aren't reaping any benefits from their religion that Christians who don't hate gays also do.

Establishing a shared enemy. Tribalism. An easy us-against-them mentality. Self-victimization. All of those are easier to maintain when the religious books and religious doctrines also obliquely, or explicitly, endorse such views.

***So let’s help cut out the religious books and religious doctrines as any kind of legitimate or authoritative source of our moral decisions.***

Too many atheists though repeat the mantra of “as long as they do not enforce it on me or preach to me, then I don’t care” and that is so out-of-step with how religions play out in our world.

If you're trying to talk people out of their beliefs, you are preaching.

Tell that to evolutionary scientists who publicly argue and debate creationists, for example. When people have heart-to-heart conversations with loved ones about how their current beliefs forbidding gay marriage are harming others around them without justification, should that be considered preaching? Experts in scientific fields try to demonstrate that one idea or hypothesis is better validated than alternatives, and that can consist of “talking to people out of their beliefs.” You are using the word “preaching” rather carelessly.

Conflate much?

Dodge the question much?

You said “if you’re trying to talk people out of their beliefs, you are preaching.” I gave numerous examples where you (hopefully) would not consider that the case. You made an error, own it. Do not dodge it or try to use a sarcastic one-liner in place of a substantive response.

…in your method, you have no community re-enforcing the belief, and no pay off for these people other than being correct.

I thought you were starting to understand better my actual position, but now I see I was wrong.



Let’s put this abundantly and explicitly clear. Please read these paragraphs slowly. Take a sip of water between sentences:



I do not argue that we should only focus on the beliefs and whether they are true or not. That has not been my position at all. You will not find a single quote of me saying anything remotely resembling that. You just ask if I deny saying it, and I respond that I never said it. You never quote me saying it in the first place. The burden is on you to show anywhere where I said it.


My actual position is that the beliefs are not *the core* or *the central part* of religion. They are one of many core and central parts of religion. There are other parts, such as the community support that religions provide, the easing of anxieties about death and meaning/value in life, the feeding of our tribalistic impulses. Those are also core and central parts of religion, in addition to the beliefs. You are correct that we need to satisfy those other cravings that religion (superficially) fulfills, through more secular means. I have never, ever, never, ever stated that we should not try to do that. Actually, I have stated numerous times (and emphasized the words) that we need to do both---we need to criticize religions and provide alternatives to them. We need to establish and support secular communities, we individually need alternative ways of understanding life and our roles in it, in order to displace religion. In addition to providing those alternatives, we also need to criticize the status quo which is present, and show how it is insufficient and even detrimental to our own interests. Criticizing the actual religious beliefs and doctrines, and their supposed merits, is one part of criticizing religious religions in general.



This thread was started with other atheists in mind---those who hold the more passive and laid-back approach of “as long as they do not enforce their religion on me, then I do not care about their religion” mentality. That is a very shortsighted and misguided approach to how we should respond to religion.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, I deny saying the thing that you said I said, but I never actually said. If I am wrong, it is your turn to show that where I actually said it. I am not going to do your homework for you, DrZoidberg.

I did quote you. I don't think I need any more homework than that? So I was hoping we could move past this now?

Yes, if you recognize that belief is one of several different core influences on Christianity. I have never held the position and never advocated the position that belief is the one-and-only core influence of Christianity. It is one of many core influences. If you understand that distinction now, then yes, let’s move past that point.

But you are ONLY focusing in trying to change the belief of Christians. You haven't mentioned trying to influence anything else. You are completely focused on this singular aspect of Christianity. You say that you are not... in the most abstract of ways. But nothing concrete you mention, mentions anything else. You have not mentioned a single strategy that isn't completely focused on just Christian belief. Which further confirms that this is all you are focusing on. And when challenged on this you refused to come up with examples. What am I to think?

But Christians who hate gays aren't reaping any benefits from their religion that Christians who don't hate gays also do.

Establishing a shared enemy. Tribalism. An easy us-against-them mentality. Self-victimization. All of those are easier to maintain when the religious books and religious doctrines also obliquely, or explicitly, endorse such views.

***So let’s help cut out the religious books and religious doctrines as any kind of legitimate or authoritative source of our moral decisions.***

Too many atheists though repeat the mantra of “as long as they do not enforce it on me or preach to me, then I don’t care” and that is so out-of-step with how religions play out in our world.

You are missing my point entirely. Are you saying that Christians who are fine with gays aren't real Christians? What about Christians who are fine with eating sea food or having mixed fibres in their clothing. Real or fake Christians? How many people were stoned for working on the Sabbath last week in your local area?

Christians don't care about following the Biblical text to the letter. Not even fundamentalists. And that is fine. All religions cherry pick from their sacred texts. They pick out things that talk to them in the moment, that speaks to them for where they are in life. It's normal and good.

Yes, having shared enemies in important for group identity. But Christians who love gays and Christians who hate gays are just doing the exact same thing. But on opposite sides. Neither is objectively being a better Christian.

Christians don't give a shit about most things in their sacred text. This is of course not a problem for all religions except Christianity and Islam. But since Christianity and Islam have fetished belief and accuracy of belief each Christian denomination have to make a tacit agreement where they agree not to challenge each others cherry picking. Their beliefs are still just a fetish. The content of the belief is completely arbitrary. Christian hatred of gays is like Hindus and not eating beef.

I once went to lunch with an Indian Hindu. I informed her that the meat in the stew she was eating was beef. She answered me "Oh, I don't care about that. That's just a religious rule". She then preceded to invite me to a Hindu mass the following week. She was a Hindu with a deeper understanding of how religion works than most religious people I've met.

If you're trying to talk people out of their beliefs, you are preaching.

Tell that to evolutionary scientists who publicly argue and debate creationists, for example. When people have heart-to-heart conversations with loved ones about how their current beliefs forbidding gay marriage are harming others around them without justification, should that be considered preaching? Experts in scientific fields try to demonstrate that one idea or hypothesis is better validated than alternatives, and that can consist of “talking to people out of their beliefs.” You are using the word “preaching” rather carelessly.

Conflate much?

Dodge the question much?

You said “if you’re trying to talk people out of their beliefs, you are preaching.” I gave numerous examples where you (hopefully) would not consider that the case. You made an error, own it. Do not dodge it or try to use a sarcastic one-liner in place of a substantive response.

You can't compare a scientist communicating science or explaining how forbidding gay marriage hurts people with trying to preach atheism to homeless people in a space where the homeless person cannot walk away from your preaching. They aren't remotely similar.

…in your method, you have no community re-enforcing the belief, and no pay off for these people other than being correct.

I thought you were starting to understand better my actual position, but now I see I was wrong.

Let’s put this abundantly and explicitly clear. Please read these paragraphs slowly. Take a sip of water between sentences:

I do not argue that we should only focus on the beliefs and whether they are true or not. That has not been my position at all. You will not find a single quote of me saying anything remotely resembling that. You just ask if I deny saying it, and I respond that I never said it. You never quote me saying it in the first place. The burden is on you to show anywhere where I said it.

My actual position is that the beliefs are not *the core* or *the central part* of religion. They are one of many core and central parts of religion. There are other parts, such as the community support that religions provide, the easing of anxieties about death and meaning/value in life, the feeding of our tribalistic impulses. Those are also core and central parts of religion, in addition to the beliefs. You are correct that we need to satisfy those other cravings that religion (superficially) fulfills, through more secular means. I have never, ever, never, ever stated that we should not try to do that. Actually, I have stated numerous times (and emphasized the words) that we need to do both---we need to criticize religions and provide alternatives to them. We need to establish and support secular communities, we individually need alternative ways of understanding life and our roles in it, in order to displace religion. In addition to providing those alternatives, we also need to criticize the status quo which is present, and show how it is insufficient and even detrimental to our own interests. Criticizing the actual religious beliefs and doctrines, and their supposed merits, is one part of criticizing religious religions in general.

So how are you planing on doing that? BTW, the stuff you're saying is the superficial stuff, is the deep stuff. Community, friendship, support and care about each other is the core of Christianity.

The Christian belief in God is the most superficial thing in Christianity. Obviously. This is why they wear it like a badge of honour. Like a fashion accessory. But the Christian God lacks all substance. It's nothing but a play on words and clever games of logic. If you need proof of that just search for any post by Lion RC. I don't doubt his faith is genuine. But there's zero depth to anything he says. And also why it doesn't seem to matter to the intensity of the Christian faith whether they hate gays or not. Or are for or against abortion. It's all same same.

This thread was started with other atheists in mind---those who hold the more passive and laid-back approach of “as long as they do not enforce their religion on me, then I do not care about their religion” mentality. That is a very shortsighted and misguided approach to how we should respond to religion.

I certainly agree with that. I think it's based on a misunderstanding of what religion is and what function it has. Religion is dying today. Now Atheists wave their little flags of victory and think it's the best thing ever. As if what comes after the death of religion is secular and rational utopia. But it won't be. Just removing religion wholesale will be total total carnage. Unless we've got something equivalent to replace it with that's equally or more nurturing and positive for the world it's not going to end well.

BTW, that was the insight we got from WW1, WW2 and the Russian revolution. While most belligerents in those wars were Christian. The push for war in all of those were the loss of Christian values and a shift to something else. It was a worship of reason, science, progress and power. We shifted from Christian ideals as the highest ideal to social Darwinism. Nietzsche could see this well in advance. It wasn't until very recently I realised that Nietzsche's quote "God is dead and we have killed him" isn't gloating about victory. It's terror. Fear of what will come. A fear that was proven valid.

No, atheism isn't equated with social Darwinism. But that is what happened last time around. Unless atheists today acknowledge this we're not going to talk anybody into anything.

After WW2 we tried to go back to Christian business as usual. But the cat in Schrödinger's Christian box was well and truly dead already. We've tried to fix Christianity to keep it relevant. But it's not going so well. Anybody can see that the American debate on Evolution and gay marriage is is just the last desperate battle of a doomed movement. Christianity is dead already. As many religion scholars have pointed out. Christianity died in the end of the 19'th century and was replaced by a new kind of more vigorous and charismatic Christianity. The sombre and boring old timey Christianity is almost completely gone today. The culture wars type Christianity is a new thing.

The hippies and New Age come from the type of people who left Christianity and wanted to find something else. Since there were no atheistic movements that filled the same role, New Age won on walk over.

Atheists are only recently putting up a fight. Which is a good development. But we still suck compared to the established religions. They're much better at this than us.

But just because atheism wins... it's not all going to be rosy. I doubt we'll see the return of social Darwinism. But it'll be something else. It would be nice if we're ahead of the curve this time and make something productive out of it. But as of now, we're replacing Christianity (or Western spirituality) with consumerism. I fail to see that as a positive development. Especially in today's world where global warming is something we should focus on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's another anecdote. There's a guy I'm working with now. He's a Belgian Catholic. We discussed the role of religion. Without hesitation he said, "religion is to control stupid people". He thought that humans in groups are dangerous and things can quickly spin out of control. It's not top down. The king or elites using religion for their nefarious needs. He saw it primarily as Christians using Christianity to control themselves and people our them. Consciously or subconsciously. I think it's a deep insight.

When I asked him if he believed in God he said "no". But he was still very much a Catholic and supported the church. He said that this is common in Belgium. He said that he'll stay Catholic until he thought we'd find something better to replace it. He's also a practising Buddhist. He sees no reason why he needs to pick one. He's active in both.

This is another Christian who has looked a bit deeper and gone beyond the superficiality of just theism.

Whether or not God exists is actually irrelevant, or even if we believe in Gods existence. That doesn't inform anything about how we should live. What's the chances that a bunch of goat herders 2000 years ago nailed it? Not great. I realised that a long time ago. I'm sure there's plenty of Christians who also understand this.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Many people have pointed out the similarities between Gender Studies/third wave feminism and religion. It could be the new secular religion of our age? It can get really weird. As Darwinism -> social Darwinisms -> Nazism showed. Not exactly a straight line nor made any sense.

 

[Brian63]

I did quote you. I don't think I need any more homework than that? So I was hoping we could move past this now?

No, you have not quoted me saying what you keep attributing to me. You just keep talking what I say, editing it and rewording it, and then it comes out to mean something different from what I say and what I mean. You have not directly quoted me. As one example, this particular lower-tier exchange here stemmed from whether I ever said the benefits of religion “hinge” on the belief in God. You attributed such a position to me. Since I never used the exact word “hinge” anywhere in the thread prior to you raising it, you are rephrasing actual statements with your own words. That in itself is fine, and people can do so with good intentions and good will, and correct themselves if they find out that they are a little imprecise. That is not the behavior you have demonstrated, however. I do not hold the position that the benefits of religion “hinge” on beliefs (or at least exclusively…they “hinge” on lots of psychological and cultural factors). That is a position you keep attributing to me though. Please provide the closest quote you can find where I said that benefits “hinge” on religious beliefs. If you cannot quote me exactly saying that, then just acknowledge that you are rewording something else that I did say. When I tell you that your rewording does not accurately reflect my views and is not a position I hold, correct it and then we can move on.

But you are ONLY focusing in trying to change the belief of Christians. You haven't mentioned trying to influence anything else.

Stop spewing your straw-shit, DrZoidberg. You are flat-out wrong there, and easy to prove so. I have acknowledged REPEATEDLY the importance of also trying to resolve other factors that play a role in religious influence, like the community support it provides, the tribalism that reinforces it, the political biases that sustain it, etc. Listed below are just some instances where I have acknowledged these:

“Simultaneously, we should also try to fix the other contributing factors, such as economic and political and tribalistic influences.”

“…each and every one of the contributing factors to those who feel such anguish should be addressed. None of them should be ignored. That may include family troubles they have, financial difficulties, physical health problems, political frustrations, etc.”

“…I have stated numerous times in this thread that it also provides for other emotional and social and psychological needs. You correctly stated above a list of other functions that they serve. I agree with your list.”

“I have never held the position and never advocated the position that belief is the one-and-only core influence of Christianity. It is one of many core influences.”

“There are other parts, such as the community support that religions provide, the easing of anxieties about death and meaning/value in life, the feeding of our tribalistic impulses. Those are also core and central parts of religion, in addition to the beliefs. You are correct that we need to satisfy those other cravings that religion (superficially) fulfills, through more secular means…There are other parts, such as the community support that religions provide, the easing of anxieties about death and meaning/value in life, the feeding of our tribalistic impulses. Those are also core and central parts of religion, in addition to the beliefs. You are correct that we need to satisfy those other cravings that religion (superficially) fulfills, through more secular means.”

For the 100th or so time now, beliefs are not “the core” component to religion. They are one of many core components.



Here is what seems to be confusing you---

My position is that there are numerous core components to religions. That is one of the views I hold, fullstop. Yes, beliefs, are one of those core components. This thread in particular has focused primarily on the beliefs aspect of it, and how active or passive atheists should be in openly criticizing bad beliefs. You are conflating what this particular thread’s purpose is and it’s specific role as if it constituted my entire view. This thread is for discussion of just that one component though. Someone could start a thread in this forum about the economic influences that contribute to the role of religion. That does not mean that that poster thinks economics is the *core* factor that contributes to religion. They may think it is one of many (as do I), but they wanted to start a thread about that one particular aspect of it. If another poster wants to discuss the emotional comfort that religion provides, they can start a thread on that. That does not mean they think religions are entirely driven by emotional comfort, but they may still want to devote a single thread to discussing that particular aspect.

So, no, again, I do not think that belief is “the core” component. It is one of many core components. In this individual thread still, I wanted to discuss that particular component further and why so many atheists are reluctant to address it, and whether we can and should do more.

Are you saying that Christians who are fine with gays aren't real Christians? What about Christians who are fine with eating sea food or having mixed fibres in their clothing. Real or fake Christians? How many people were stoned for working on the Sabbath last week in your local area?

I am saying none of the above. I do not give a shit about which actually constitutes “real Christians.” I care that each of them thinks it even matters what it means to be “real Christians,” and why they would waste breath having that debate with each other. What would constitute a person being a “true gremlin-worshipper” I do not care about. What I would care about is 2 people would even believe that that is a debate worth having (except in jest).

Christians don't care about following the Biblical text to the letter.

Ugggghhh…maybe out in your neck of the globe you are not exposed to that as much, but at least here in the U.S. they advocate for such views. I am not at all saying that they do actually behave according to the letter of the Bible, please do not strawman me as saying that. What I am saying is that they advocate for exactly what they think the Bible says to the letter, will cite specific chapters and verses to justify their behaviors, reinterpreted in various biased ways. To say that they “don’t care following the Biblical text to the letter” reflects sheer damning ignorance to your case here, DrZoidberg.

You can't compare a scientist communicating science or explaining how forbidding gay marriage hurts people with trying to preach atheism to homeless people in a space where the homeless person cannot walk away from your preaching. They aren't remotely similar.

Then you should not have used the same word to describe both. Your definition of “preach” should be more than simply “trying to talk people out of their beliefs.” It should distinguish between the two.

…the stuff you're saying is the superficial stuff, is the deep stuff. Community, friendship, support and care about each other is the core of Christianity.

No, that is not “the core.” There are “many cores” to Christianity. All the ones you list there are some of them, but there are more. The beliefs are also one of the cores, the tribalistic and nationalistic biases it stirs in us is another core, the easing of existential angsts and fears of mortality is another core, for examples.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here is what seems to be confusing you---

My position is that there are numerous core components to religions. That is one of the views I hold, fullstop. Yes, beliefs, are one of those core components. This thread in particular has focused primarily on the beliefs aspect of it, and how active or passive atheists should be in openly criticizing bad beliefs. You are conflating what this particular thread’s purpose is and it’s specific role as if it constituted my entire view. This thread is for discussion of just that one component though. Someone could start a thread in this forum about the economic influences that contribute to the role of religion. That does not mean that that poster thinks economics is the *core* factor that contributes to religion. They may think it is one of many (as do I), but they wanted to start a thread about that one particular aspect of it. If another poster wants to discuss the emotional comfort that religion provides, they can start a thread on that. That does not mean they think religions are entirely driven by emotional comfort, but they may still want to devote a single thread to discussing that particular aspect.

So, no, again, I do not think that belief is “the core” component. It is one of many core components. In this individual thread still, I wanted to discuss that particular component further and why so many atheists are reluctant to address it, and whether we can and should do more.

I don't buy it. I think you're just changing the topic now. But who cares? It's silly. At no point has this been a competition to see who says the wrong thing, straw mans or whatever. You've been absurdly defensive this entire thread. Accusing me of God (pun) knows what. I don't understand why? We discuss things to test ideas. So your ideas weren't thought out clearly... So? That's also a valuable insight. We're all on the same side here. We both have the same end goal. We're both atheists who want to see a less religious world. If atheism is so much better than theism, then shouldn't we be able to cooperate then?

Are you saying that Christians who are fine with gays aren't real Christians? What about Christians who are fine with eating sea food or having mixed fibres in their clothing. Real or fake Christians? How many people were stoned for working on the Sabbath last week in your local area?

I am saying none of the above. I do not give a shit about which actually constitutes “real Christians.” I care that each of them thinks it even matters what it means to be “real Christians,” and why they would waste breath having that debate with each other. What would constitute a person being a “true gremlin-worshipper” I do not care about. What I would care about is 2 people would even believe that that is a debate worth having (except in jest).

So then you agree that belief for Christians is just a fetish? It is something superficial to Christianity and not that important to it? Other than just that they say that it is (which it isn't).

Christians don't care about following the Biblical text to the letter.

Ugggghhh…maybe out in your neck of the globe you are not exposed to that as much, but at least here in the U.S. they advocate for such views. I am not at all saying that they do actually behave according to the letter of the Bible, please do not strawman me as saying that. What I am saying is that they advocate for exactly what they think the Bible says to the letter, will cite specific chapters and verses to justify their behaviors, reinterpreted in various biased ways. To say that they “don’t care following the Biblical text to the letter” reflects sheer damning ignorance to your case here, DrZoidberg.

Ehe... but the same Christians who damn gays and citing Bible verses are usually fine with mixing fibres, eating sea food and working on the Sabbath. Sure, they think they're following the Bible to the letter, but we know they're not.

How do they manage to do one thing and not the other things? Could it be because of their community and they're validating each others belief? Perhaps?

Belief to Christians is a fetish. So is the Bible. So they will use Biblical passages to support the beliefs they hold. That doesn't prove that the beliefs aren't arbitrary and pulled straight out of their arses. Which explains why Christians seem to be capable of any behaviour or any belief.

Two years ago the archbishop of the Church of Sweden was the inaugural speaker at gay Pride. That's the Swedish state church from back when we had a state church.

There's a famous TV debate from the 80'ies where a woman fundamentalist was debating against the then archbishop of Sweden and he quoted the 2'nd Corinthians that women should keep quiet, and finished with that we have to take the Bible with a grain of salt.

I'm not saying belief isn't important to Christians or that the Bible doesn't inform their actions. But it's more like spice on the sauce, rather than the actual sauce. What that means is that beliefs are superficial to Christianity and they will change them if it's in their best interest to do so.

That's how Islam manages to produce a boat load of suicide bombers even though committing suicide is a mortal sin in Islam.

…the stuff you're saying is the superficial stuff, is the deep stuff. Community, friendship, support and care about each other is the core of Christianity.

No, that is not “the core.” There are “many cores” to Christianity. All the ones you list there are some of them, but there are more. The beliefs are also one of the cores, the tribalistic and nationalistic biases it stirs in us is another core, the easing of existential angsts and fears of mortality is another core, for examples.

If the belief is core how come some Christians hate gays wile some Christians love gays? I think you need to figure our how that works before your theory holds any water. Because right now it doesn't.

 

[Brian63]

I don't buy it. I think you're just changing the topic now.

Requesting that you cite a quote and a source for the positions you attribute to me is very much on-topic. It is your strawmen that are off-topic.

At no point has this been a competition to see who says the wrong thing, straw mans or whatever.

If you want to demonstrate that, then at least acknowledge that you have been arguing against strawmen in this thread. No equivocations, no minimizing, no obfuscations. Just acknowledge that you have committed strawmen errors. Flat-out.

You've been absurdly defensive this entire thread.

Your ego cannot take a hit actually. When you throw out first punches and then have them come back at you, you have accused me of being "defensive" for reacting similarly. You have never acknowledged being offensive yourself to begin with.

So then you agree that belief for Christians is just a fetish? It is something superficial to Christianity and not that important to it? Other than just that they say that it is (which it isn't).

No, it is obviously much more than just a "fetish." It partly comprises the identity of people and their entire life and perceptions of reality. They cannot give up their doctrinal beliefs and theologies because, in part, it would also mean having to disassociate with their nearby communities. Meanwhile, their communities also reinforce adherence to the beliefs, because any kind of rejection of the beliefs among the members puts the community at risk. So the beliefs aspect and the community aspect work hand-in-hand with each other for their mutual benefit and even survival. Neither is a "fetish."