Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Being a Disney fan and giving your life to Christ are two totally different things. I'm sort of baffled as to why anyone would try to compare them. It's not like CC believes that Mickey Mouse really lives in Toontown.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt That is, in the same way that some people believe that Jesus was the son of God.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It's not like CC believes that Mickey Mouse really lives in Toontown.> LALALALA can't hear you!!!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You are on a Disney board, for starters, a brand that is all about etherial things like emotions and dreams and magic. Like any great brand, they tap into emotions far more than reason*** I just like cool rides.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And yet.... there's "something" about staying on property that is appealing, right? Even if it's more expensive*** Um...they're better hotels? Heck, I freakin HATE the All-Stars. I'd rather stay in Miami and COMMUTE to DisneyWorld than stay there. But I love the Polynesian and the Boardwalk. I'd stay there anytime.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance "And yet.... there's "something" about staying on property that is appealing, right? Even if it's more expensive." Yes, of course feeling and emotion play a part in some decisions. But, it's okay to let them play a part in things like which hotel should I stay at. But a little different when deciding should I believe in some magnificent being that has a plan layed out for us. My emotional side would rather there was a God. It'd be better than dying and not existing anymore. I'd like to believe that I'll be with my family for all eternity. (most of them anyway) but my logical side won't allow me to fall for it, even though it'd make me feel cozier.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But it comes down to a total stalemate. One side says there is absolutely no proof of God's existence, while the other side says they have all the proof they need. I don't think atheists in general can understand, let alone accept, that to a person with religious faith, they absolutely believe in God. In much the same way, many religious people can't understand why atheists can't "see" all the evidence for there being a God.<< I guess I don't see it as that polar-opposite. The Mahers of the world aren't just critiquing religion to be mean-spirited. Even Dawkins and Harris have said that, apart from what they see as silliness for believing in God, they have no beef with moderate faith. These guys are attacking real beliefs held by hundreds of millions of people worldwide that cause real harm everyday. The harm ranges from the big, obvious issues of terror and violence, to small, personal issues of guilt or familial division. My in-laws treat my wife much differently because she's not a believer. These are real problems and it's not enough to do what most - even thoughtful - believers do and say "Whadda ya gonna do? Religion does lots of good too ya know." Even otherwise decent people cause harm through their religious beliefs (Prop 8, for example). So there's value in having people call out the literalism that leads to this kind of harm. Are Maher and Hitchens mostly preaching to the choir? Absolutely. But someone hears them and comes up with arguments about the silliness of literal belief and then that person has a more gentle conversation with a friend or family member. My hope is that the day will come when literal belief that causes harm is shamed the same way racism is. I know it's a loaded statement and I hope people here will try and understand what I mean instead of just getting outraged. Some people learn about Biblical criticism and adjust their beliefs accordingly to more metaphorical or more personal interpretations. Others dig in their heels and insist the Bible is infallible and they won't change. Just like some people had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century with their antiquated beliefs that caused harm, so it is here. Which is why I'm always a bit surprised at the reaction of thoughtful believers to these guys. Sure, I get it's not your cup of tea. But is there really no place for the kind of community that goes in this direction of pushing back hard on religious faith that does real harm? Faith is not a benign thing. The harm and pain it can and frequently does cause is everywhere. The violence may be perpetuated by a few, but the division isn't. The power wielded is nothing to blow off either. We learned after Bush left office that Karl Rove had a weekly conference call with religious leaders, some of whom advocated an invasion of Iran as a way to hasten the Second Coming. I'm not kidding. So this isn't a debate between kindly believers and skeptics. It's a debate between those with magical thinking who let their worldview impact others in a negative way and those who say there's a better way for all of us to live, and here's why.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Are Maher and Hitchens mostly preaching to the choir?<< Religion. THERE'S NO ESCAPE.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***We learned after Bush left office that Karl Rove had a weekly conference call with religious leaders*** Oh, for the love of ALLAH! Isn't there something unconstitutional about this!!!!????
Originally Posted By Mr X ***We learned after Bush left office that Karl Rove had a weekly conference call with religious leaders*** Oh, for the love of ALLAH! Isn't there something unconstitutional about this!!!!????
Originally Posted By ecdc All I'm saying is, take away the harm that religion does directly or indirectly and the Dawkins of the world go away. Or at least they become a lot less strident. And I don't buy the all-too common argument that it's not religion, it's just human nature and shucks, these people are using religion in a bad way. It's much more complicated than that and the suspension of reason that is often (certainly not always) encouraged by religion feeds the problem.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Being a Disney fan and giving your life to Christ are two totally different things. I'm sort of baffled as to why anyone would try to compare them. << I wasn't doing that. But I was trying to make the point that in spite of CC saying she always uses logic and reason to make purchasing decisions (her analogy, not mine), that she likely makes them for other reasons as well having nothing to do with pure logic and reason. She didn't understand why people would believe in God "in spite of all the evidence". I was trying to explain that sometimes decisions we make and beliefs we have do go beyond pure logic and reason.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And I don't buy the all-too common argument that it's not religion, it's just human nature and shucks, these people are using religion in a bad way.<< How about all the horrible things that are done that have zero to do with religion? You know that if you had a group of humans and grew them in some isolated locale and somehow presented any mention of any kind of religion, some of them would grow up to cheat, steal, lie and even kill. I'm all for assigning blame to religion when it has it coming. But to wave off the possibility that some nut is simply misusing a religion to do what they want to do anyway?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The Mahers of the world aren't just critiquing religion to be mean-spirited.<< Have you seen Religulous? It's mean-spirited. He "bravely" takes on half-wit yokels and sets them up for ridicule, which, predictably, they walk right into. It's disappointing because generally, he doesn't do that on his shows. He lets people of all sides have their say and generally, they hold their own in these discussions. To me, that's much more interesting than watching a smart guy take on dumb people. Look at how Michael Moore approached health care in Sicko. He didn't find the most down and out person who lost everything because of a lack of health care insurance. He focused on average people who thought that their employer-provided healthcare would be there for them when they needed it... and lost everything. One way is smart. The other is just being a bully.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'm all for assigning blame to religion when it has it coming. But to wave off the possibility that some nut is simply misusing a religion to do what they want to do anyway?<< I'm not waving it off. I'm pointing out that it's more complicated than absolving religion of responsibility just because it's how people are. Encouraging magical thinking in an uncritical way exacerbates human nature that already exists. >>Have you seen Religulous? It's mean-spirited. He "bravely" takes on half-wit yokels and sets them up for ridicule, which, predictably, they walk right into.<< I have seen it and while I don't think it's a paragon of atheist thought, I think you're being a bit unfair. He doesn't just talk to yokels. And indeed, for me that's a big part of the issue. Perfectly intelligent, reasonable people suddenly forget they have a brain when it comes to religion. So a high-powered lawyer or a prominent politician will reject evolution or tell you they believe the Noah story because they don't think critically about it. Are they stupid? Of course not. But is that belief and behavior stupid? Yup. Those are a lot of the people Maher talks to, as well as religious leaders. So again, that's the rub: you can't dismiss the harm and the stupidity as just "yokels." It's mainstream and it's everywhere. Look at polls on religious belief in America. Huge swaths of people routinely say they think the Bible is infallible. And note, I didn't say Maher couldn't be mean-spirited. Sometimes he is and I disagree with some of what he says. But what I said was these atheist responses don't come out of nowhere to just be rude to harmless people minding their own business. They were spurred on by the tremendous harm religion is capable of. And let's not forget or minimize how widespread and painful that harm can be.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>A biased response, in that it ascribes to ALL atheists pure motives, which is just as silly as ascribing to all Christian leaders bad ones.<< I think questioning anyone's motives gets pretty hairy. I'm not questioning the motives of religious leaders at all. I think their devotion is sincere. Which is exactly the problem - they believe in what they do which allows them to overlook or justify the harm it can do. But we're using general terms that have broad meanings. I don't think every atheist motive is pure, and I certainly don't think every religious leader causes harm or believes crazy things. But generally speaking, I think it's unfair to question atheist motives. Again, the focus is on them ruining the party rather than on their critique. If they're wrong, let's hear it instead of just more "They're mean!" They are responding to real beliefs held by millions of people that cause real harm on a daily basis. Why not confront that head-on instead of saying it's rude or it's not what you think or otherwise avoiding their criticisms directly? Finally, Maher is a different situation. His movie is a bit like the Daily Show - commentary mixed with humor. Maher was trying to be funny and not make a straight documentary - I think that's clear. If you don't like it or don't find it funny, alrighty then. I can get it's not for everyone. But there's plenty of other New Atheists to look at. And the focus on them, and the insistence on absolving religion of responsibility in the name of blaming a few extremists, is off the mark. Just ask some kid with AIDS in Africa since the Pope says birth control is naughty. I think we're so accustomed to some of the awful stuff that happens thanks to religion, we don't even make the connection anymore.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>the insistence on absolving religion of responsibility << But I'm not insisting that at all. If some ridiculous thing is done in the name of religion, especially when it dehumanizes someone else or tramples someone's rights, that's flat wrong. But does the whole of "religion" have to be held accountable? If so, then it's only fair that when an atheist goes too far or does something horrible to say that "atheism poisons everything." Know what I mean? Make the connection when it needs to be made, when it really is "thanks to religion" -- not in a broad, sweeping way.
