Richard Dawkins Hate Mail.............

[dimbear]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/12/richard_dawkins_interview_science_religion_irrationality_group_selection.html

(snippet of long article)
H: Nevertheless, there's a gulf between the real you and the caricature Richard Dawkins. How has that come about?
RD: I have two theories which are not mutually exclusive. One is the religion business. People really, really hate their religion being criticized. It's as though you've said they had an ugly face, they seem to identify personally with it. There is a historical attitude that religion is off-limits to criticism.

Also, some people find clarity threatening. They like muddle, confusion, obscurity. So when somebody does no more than speak clearly it sounds threatening.
*************
Dimbear: a fascinating retrospective of Dawkins' remarkable thought. Well worth the read.

[msongs]

1. religion is a multi-billion $$ business. it doesn't like criticism that cuts into the take nt

[longship]

2. Love Dawkins.

The caricature Dawkins is the one people most often attack. Even here.

The real guy is no where near the caricature. This short interview gives people a glimpse of that.

R&K

[TexasProgresive]

3. "People really, really hate their religion being criticized."

People really, really hate their position being criticized.

That seems to be the case for liberals, conservatives,theists and atheists or whatever. So some hate Dawkins and others hate Francis, some difference.

Hate is hate, regardless of the "reason" used to justify it.

[skepticscott]

4. So when people hate Richard Dawkins

for saying that evolution happened and that creationism is bunk (i.e., the truth), that's all the same as people hating Francis for promoting sexism and homophobic bigotry? Is that what you're saying?

Please tell us, TexasProgressive, that that's NOT what you're saying.

[el_bryanto]

6. That's a good rhetorical choice - pair up Dawkins least controversial points

with the most controversial aspect to Pope Francis. Kind of tips the scales one way, rhetorically speaking.

Bryant

[trotsky]

18. Well then let's compare Dawkins' worst to the pope's worst.

I'll even let you pick Dawkins' worst. For the pope, he's on record saying that gay marriage is from Satan and that gay adoption is discrimination against children. He also opposes the equality of women, thinks that homosexuals need to remain celibate, and opposes birth control.

Your turn.

[el_bryanto]

48. Dawkins probably wins that comparison

“THE MAJORITY of children born into the world tend to inherit the beliefs of their parents, and that to me is one of the most regrettable facts of them all”

“Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.”

“Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that.”

“The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism - as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion."

“It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree. You interpret that as ‘intolerance’ because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, which expects to get a free ride and not have to defend itself. If I wrote a book called The Socialist Delusion or The Monetarist Delusion, you would never use a word like intolerance. But The God Delusion sounds automatically intolerant. Why? What’s the difference? I have a (you might say fanatical) desire for people to use their own minds and make their own choices, based upon publicly available evidence. Religious fanatics want people to switch off their own minds, ignore the evidence, and blindly follow a holy book based upon private ‘revelation’. There is a huge difference.”

Yes; although I don't agree with those quotes they aren't as problematic as some of the things Pope Francis has said. On the other hand I do agree with Dawkins that evolution actually happened, and that we should be impressed and interested with the world around us, and the scientific understanding of it. So I agree with Dawkins on some things, and disagree with him on others.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

58. The person I was replying to

said "Hate is hate, regardless of the reason used to justify it". In other words, how "controversial" the thing being hated is makes no difference, according to them. I pointed out that it does make a difference.

Would you agree that I'm right and that they're full of baloney?

[el_bryanto]

63. It depends on what you mean by hate

I don't believe in hating anybody; these aren't standards I always live up to because I get riled and fail at it, but you should try and love everybody. I also think hatred and anger keep you from really understanding and grappling with what other people are saying; even if you end up disagreeing with them you should still try and understand where they are coming from (for too many people, though, a failure to accept a position means you haven't really understood it).

Let's bring up Phelps (who by the way is a good way to avoid Goodwins law) - do I hate Phelps? I don't really feel the need to; I disagree with him and feel that what he does is despicable; I would favor keeping him away from funerals if there was a legal way to do that. But I don't hate him; and I feel like I do understand as much of his point of view as I need to.

That said, if by hatred you mean disagreement; than you can disagree with anybody who says something you disagree with.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

76. I was quoting and replying to someone else saying "hate is hate"

So why would you ask what I meant by it, when you read the whole exchange yourself? Other than to avoid answering a simple, direct question.

[el_bryanto]

79. I can't answer the question without defining the terms.

But ok, since you require a simple answer to a simple direct question, I disagree with you.

[cbayer]

7. I agree. Dawkins reaction when he feels criticized is the same as the

reaction of those he criticizes. And he is just as dogmatic.

[edhopper]

8. You would have to point to Dawkins

reacting in the same way religious folk react to his criticism of religion.
And mind you, we aren't talking about personal criticism, which he clearly delineates, but criticism of his ideas.

[cbayer]

11. I would point to his reaction to the criticism of what many

considered his islamophobic remarks. He isn't bigoted, in his opinion, he just loves "truth" and "honesty". This, to me, sounds very much like the same argument a fundamentalist would make when defending their own bigotry.

He became very defensive, even petulant.

As was said, people don't like to have their ideas criticized and have a tendency to turn the criticism back on their critic.

In this article alone, he calls his critics illiterate and refers to their writings as "hate mail".

If you are a Dawkins supporter, I doubt very much that we can have much productive discussion about him, his attitude or his approach.

He is an anti-theist, by his own definition, and I have no fondness for anti-theists anymore the I have for anti-atheists.

[edhopper]

15. I'd rather let him defend himself

" I think my love of truth and honesty forces me to notice that the liberal intelligentsia of Western countries is betraying itself where Islam is concerned. It's stymied by the conflict between being against misogyny and discrimination against women on the one hand, and on the other by the terror of being thought racist—driven by misunderstanding Islam as though it were a race. So people who would normally speak out against the maltreatment of women don't do it. I do fret about what I see as a betrayal by my own people, the nice liberals."

He has always debated his ideas. This is in opposition to the religious who say you can't even question their beliefs. And this is something you have espoused as well. Why shouldn't he point out the barbaric aspects of Islam?

[cbayer]

20. But it's not in opposition to the religious who rigorously question their

own beliefs. He may have done it, but I have yet to see him acknowledge the religious leaders and groups who champion civil rights and social justice.

FWIW, he didn't just point out the barbaric aspects of Islam, but rather that Islam had prevented any intellectual progress or had even caused intellectual decline.

And he defended himself in an article in which he was pictured with his "Religion - together we can find a cure" t-shirt, a slogan which is highly offensive to others.

IMHO, he's just the other side of the same coin…. and is driven by the same motivations.

[trotsky]

24. Other side of the same coin?

You mean he's got followers that bomb clinics and fly planes into buildings? Whoa, I did not know that!

[rug]

42. Sam Harris is trying his best.

He just wants the government to do it.

Hitchens, though, did get the war he wanted.

[edhopper]

26. I get you do not like his position

on religion.
I reject your assessment of him being the same as religious fundamentalists.
Let me know when he declares a fatwa on someone and calls for their death.

[cbayer]

32. There are many variations of "fatwas".

Since it is a word that has a specific tie to Islam, one would need to broaden it to include other concepts

Calling religion a disease that must be eliminated or cured could be placed in a similar category.

[trotsky]

39. Or in other words, "close enough" for you.

That's very dishonest, and disgusting. Dawkins has not called for anyone's death and you know that.

[Warren Stupidity]

168. Hmmm... Equivocation, how unusual.

[cbayer]

169. Could you elaborate?

[trotsky]

178. Sorry you don't understand what you're doing.

Thankfully plenty do.

[trotsky]

21. LOL

"people don't like to have their ideas criticized and have a tendency to turn the criticism back on their critic"

Yup, they sure do, cbayer. They sure do.

[Rob H.]

40. "...he calls his critics illiterate and refers to their writings as "hate mail"."

No, he calls the people who send him hate mail illiterate. There are plenty of people who've criticized him in their own books and in the press and I can't recall him calling any of them "illiterate."

RH: You definitely polarize people. How do you feel about the hate mail you get?
RD: I did a film that's on YouTube of me reading hate mail with a woman playing the cello in the background. Sweet strains to contrast with this awful, "you fucking wanker Dawkins" and so on. Making comedy of it is a pretty good way of absorbing it.

Watch the YouTube video linked in the original article--the writing is on par with and has the same tone as the knuckledraggers who used to stuff DU's "Hate Mailbag" and it is hate mail unless "I hope you die slowly and fucking burn in Hell, you damn blasphemy" is supposed to be some sort of weird compliment.

[trotsky]

41. It is hard not to laugh at the people who hate him so much,

DUers included.

[rug]

47. "It is hard not to laugh at the people who hate him so much,

DUers included."


Indeed.

[Goblinmonger]

52. So you're cool

with misogyny and homophobia?

[rug]

56. No, nor Islamophobia.

[Goblinmonger]

60. Dawkins isn't my pope

He's not the leader of my chosen religion. The closest I've come to supporting him with money is buying one of his books.

Nice try, though.

[rug]

69. Francis isn't my politician.

Poor try.

[Goblinmonger]

71. His/your organziation

denies rights to gays and women. Don't care if he's a politician.

[rug]

72. Politicians deal with rights.

[edhopper]

74. And the Church or any religion

has no or little influence. Maybe the same Dawkins has on laws. Right.
That is a rather pathetic argument.

[rug]

80. Maybe you need a primer on the difference between church and state.

[Goblinmonger]

83. Maybe the pope does. n/t

[rug]

84. Well, now that's two of you.

[edhopper]

85. Maybe you need a history lesson.

Keep doubling down, the pure absurdity of your argument is apparent to everyone.
Please proceed....

[rug]

87. I know history. Apparently you don't know the present.

Say hi to "everyone". That's you and GM, correct?

[edhopper]

88. I'm so glad you think the RC

has the same political clout as Dawkins and that none of our laws are influenced by them. I'll tell that to the women who can't get abortions or birth control and the Gay people who can't marry.

Please proceed....

[rug]

89. Dawkins, fortunately, does have little influence outside a circle of adulators.

BTW, that's a sad impression of Obama.

[edhopper]

90. So what was your point in making the comparison.

When told Dawkins isn't his pope, why say Francis isn't your politician. The inference is he holds no sway politically, an absurd statement.
And then you continue to minimize the RCs influence on laws.
Please proceed...

[rug]

91. Ask goblin. He's the one that brought the Pope into it.

#60.

And your impression is still sad.

[Goblinmonger]

92. You did it. #47

But don't let facts get in your way.

Carry on.

[rug]

94. Oh, was I talking to you there?

Or are you just carrying water?

[Goblinmonger]

97. Who made you god of DU?

You were talking about me. I think it's unreasonable for me to point out when you are lying about me.

[rug]

99. See 98.

Call a huddle and get back on track.

[edhopper]

93. Nice dodge.

A failed argument or maybe a ill thought response, but no effort to own up to it. Figures.

[rug]

95. There's no dodge but I do find it comical how the last resort of what you consider "everyone" is

to invoke "the Pope".

[edhopper]

96. You mean

answering how he could listen to someone who also might hold some views you describe as hateful?
Hmmm, why would he say that to you? What point was he possibly making?
It's a mystery.

[rug]

98. What and who on earth are you talking about?

Gm replies to me about a reply I made to Trotsky in another subthread.

Now you are replying to me about a reply I made to (presumably) gm god knows where.

Guys, get your act together. It's embarassing.

[Goblinmonger]

100. Nice obfuscation ploy

You brought up the pope. In post 47. Later you claimed that I was the one that brought in the pope. That isn't true. You can apologize to me at your convenience.

And I assume it has not escaped the observation of those reading this thread the levels you have gone to in order to not talk about the beliefs and actions of the guy that you brought up in response to trotsky. It is abundantly clear that you have no desire to talk about the misogyny and homophobia of Francis and the RCC. But you feel more than free to talk about Dawkins being not such a nice guy.

But I have given up thinking you will discuss Francis after bringing him up. My main point in this has been clarification that it was in fact you that brought up the pope and not I as you claimed.

[rug]

101. Uh, you do realize I was talking to ed? Have you straightened everything out?

[Goblinmonger]

102. I don't care who you're talking to.

I get to respond when you say things regardless of whom you are replying to. That's the way a discussion forum works. I would think you know that by now.

But hint for the future...if you don't want me to jump into a conversation, don't say things about me that aren't true. That's the only reason I jumped into this one.

[rug]

104. I do. Despite appearances, I do value my time.

But since you're here . . . .

Work on your damn communication skills. That is what you teach, isn't it?

If your reply in #60 was in reference to mine in #47 in an entirely different subthread, say so.

I'm not a mindreader, especially since I'm finding it harder to read small print.

And I'll give you a hint for the future . . . . grow up.

[edhopper]

106. And all my post referred to

your response to GM. So....

[edhopper]

105. This, hope that refreshes your memory.

trotsky (34,228 posts)
41. It is hard not to laugh at the people who hate him so much,

DUers included.


Star Member rug (54,734 posts)
47.

Indeed.



Goblinmonger (16,731 posts)
52. So you're cool

with misogyny and homophobia?


Star Member rug (54,734 posts)
56. No, nor Islamophobia.


Goblinmonger (16,731 posts)
60. Dawkins isn't my pope

He's not the leader of my chosen religion. The closest I've come to supporting him with money is buying one of his books.

Nice try, though.

Star Member rug (54,734 posts)
69. Francis isn't my politician.

Poor try.


Goblinmonger (16,731 posts)
71. His/your organziation

denies rights to gays and women. Don't care if he's a politician.



Star Member rug (54,734 posts)
72. Politicians deal with rights.

[rug]

107. Precisely.

Next time show the message tree.

[edhopper]

108. Time to claim victory and go home.

[cbayer]

125. Who is everyone?

[edhopper]

128. rhetorical flourish

[cbayer]

131. Oh, ok.

I remain curious about why some people use the 1st person plural in this group.

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. Head of church, head of state - the Pope is both

No-one blurs the lines between church and state as successfully as the Pope.

[rug]

110. He rules those 109 acres with an iron fist.

This is no longer the fifteenth century.

[muriel_volestrangler]

112. No - in the 20th and 21st century, the Vatican gets Permanent Observer status in the UN too (nt)

[rug]

115. My God! I bet the Observers come with Swiss Guards.

We're all much better off, muriel, that it no longer has a state except on paper.

[cbayer]

126. Well, there is always the UK monarchy, where the Queen is also head of the church.

That's a bit of a blur there.

[Goblinmonger]

77. ................

[rug]

82. . . . . .

Have some stale moldy bread to go with your argument.

[rexcat]

129. I don't think it is a matter of "hate"...

when it comes to the pope. It is my opinion that when someone uses the word "hate" in the context used in this thread and others in this forum they are basically saying I can't really defend my position so they use a über strong word like "hate" to stop any rational discussion. Similar to how cbayer uses the work "anti-theist." Both words are over used to the extent they really have no real meaning and it shuts down meaningful dialogue.

Trotsky has pointed out on many occasion the irony of some of cbayer's comments and one in this thread (kettle meet pot type comments). Cbayer won't respond to Trotsky's comments because he points out her occasional disingenuous comments. That is her prerogative but she is as stubborn and thin skinned at times as anyone else on this forum, and that would include me.

I don't hate the pope but I do not like him either. I don't hate the catholic church but I do dislike the church because of its policies and positions when it comes to pedophilia, women's issues including birth control and abortion, misogamy, the use of condoms to prevent HIV and other STDs, miracles and other supernatural explanations, and a host of other issues. I can also say that of any other religion out their. Fundamentally the current pope's stances on most topics are no different than the previous pope(s). He his just more savvy in his delivery. The only difference I see his when he talks about income inequality but there is a level of hypocrisy considering the overall wealth of said church.

Nice try rug.

[cbayer]

133. I use anti-theist in the same way Dawkins uses it.

Is that a problem?

Do you not believe that there are anti-theists that are distinct from atheists as a whole?

Is there some reason that you are talking about me and not to me? You can assume whatever you like about why I respond to some people and not others, but your posted assumption is completely off the mark. Completely.

[rexcat]

134. Personally...

I think you go overboard on it. I stick with my post to rug's post without apology. I used you as an example and I think the analogy is valid.

You are a good example of the point I was making and you have not disappointed me with your current post and what I believe is an overreaction. Since you do post frequently in this forum I know full well you read every post in this forum so it is not like I am discussing anything behind your back and you can and usually do respond so you can get off that high horse. That would also include the AA forum which you frequent and then come back here to make comment occasionally despite that is a protected forum where you have lost you privilege to post. You see any criticism of your statements as a personal attack. You really need to reflect more before you react so viscerally. In all fairness you can make some excellent posts but other times not so much.

And for the most part I am more interested in what rug has to say concerning my post than you since he invoked the "hate" word with a flattering picture of the smiling pope with relation to his Reply Title . I will see if he will respond in a reflective manner, make a strident comment or none at all.

[cbayer]

135. Go overboard by identifying a group that is a distinct subset?

Ok.

I don't think it's an overreaction for one to respond when they are being called out. Glad I didn't disappoint you.

I don't repeat things from the AA forum here. I did that once when a well known troll had infiltrated that group. That was used as an opportunity to ban me, but it was completely transparent as I didn't post there anyway. So you can refer back to an incident that occurred about 2 years ago, but you won't find another incident of that happening since that little charade.

It's all mythology and fits a narrative that serves a purpose. Some buy into it without doing their own homework, others don't.

We all make good and bad posts, don't we? And often I am being attacked, so I will maintain my right to defend myself when I choose.

You can use me as an example if you want, but you really should get your facts straight before doing so. What you really posted was just your personal opinion of me.

[rug]

141. The word hate was in the quote. Whatever he meant, it's a two-way street.

It would be dishonest to spend any time in this Group and claim otherwise.

[rexcat]

166. It does not necessarily have to be a two-way street...

What I see is a lot of distain in this Group with a touch of intolerance at times but not hate. At least I can articulate why I don't like your pope or your religion but I know there is common ground that we share in other areas or we would not be a part of DU.

The rare times when I am in a social situation I don't talk religion unless someone says something really outrageous and then I feel compelled to counter the comment that was made but I usually keep in pretty tame. Where I live in I hear all kinds of outrageous things, both politically and when religion comes up. If you don't conform to the community norms things can quickly get out of hand. There is an inordinate amount of bigotry and racism which is one of the disheartening things about living in a conservative quasi-religious community. I see a lot of worshipers of Christ but not a lot of follower of Christ. A a lot of people around these parts claim to be Christians.

I have a dislike for the word "hate." It gets no one anywhere. Just one of my quirks.

[rug]

167. No, it doesn't. It's quite unproductive.

[longship]

152. Cannot go there with you.

Richard Dawkins, if he has a problem, is that he speaks as a scientist. And people not used to that kind of rhetoric might label it with any number of negative attributes.

If I would accuse Dawkins of anything it would be that he sees things almost solely through his scientific eyes. I often do that, too, which is probably why I see Dawkins doing it.

The deal is that Richard Dawkins is a victim of his own outspoken self. People say he is mean, therefore he must be mean.

I respond with, those who say that could not have read his many books. They certainly are portraying a person by some cartoonish version of the guy, one often portrayed in the media but certainly not portrayed by the person himself.

Indeed, he is passionate. But how is that a negative? When one devotes ones life to a discipline and it is being undermined by lunatics, one steps up and speaks out. Yes, Dawkins stirs the pot. But damnit! Somebody needs to do precisely that.

I excuse him for his occasional misspeaks. He is one of the good people on the side of truth. I support his goals 100% in spite of his human foibles. Plus, he's considerably advanced his discipline over his very productive years, especially in the education of the Everyman. And if he says something that theists object, so be it. They are the ones driving the anti-Dawkins complaints. Some milk toast, professed atheists have picked up that banner.

I don't take the ideological malignment of Richard Dawkins lightly. He is one of the good guys.

And no, Neither Richard Dawkins nor I are adherents to Gould's NOMA. We both believe that science and religion are not merely non-overlapping magisteria, they are absolutely opposed in principle. But that's another discussion.

Sorry, my friend.

[cbayer]

155. Did not for a moment think you would go there with me.

I had the most unfortunate experience the other morning of awakening to an interview with Dawkins (he's on a book tour). I assure you my reaction to him has nothing to do with him speaking like a scientist. I'm a scientist. I love scientists and I generally like to hear them speak (though some can be profoundly dull).

My reaction to him has to do with his arrogant, rigid, dogmatic beliefs and his fundamentalist position that he is right and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. My reaction to him as to do with his lack of recognition that his enormous point of privilege prevents him from really seeing some other perspectives. My reaction to him has to do with the language he uses in discussing the religious. My reaction to him has to do with my belief that his views towards religion and the religious are intolerant and bigoted, and his views towards women are not much better.

Nothing wrong with passion, unless you are passionate about your prejudices towards another group.

He served a useful purpose in kicking down some doors. I will give him that, but, imho, it's no longer an effective approach to what needs to happen to increase true secularism and improve the status of atheists in this country. It just appears self-serving at this point, and there are many younger atheists who are lining up and want a very different approach.

If science and religion are absolutely opposed in principle, he should have stuck to science. But that's another discussion.

No need to apologize. We will most likely always be on the opposite sides of this fence.

[longship]

157. I am fine with that and I still call you my friend.

I know he gets people's shorts in a bunch, so to speak. But his language is that of science. It is the language in peer reviewed journals, which is very similar to his public person.

Science is competitive, even fiercely so. It is one of its greatest attributes. Many of the best do not suffer fools gracefully. It is part of the character of the discipline. One gets used to it. That is the milieux that Dawkins worked in for decades. He had a notable public feud with Stephen J Gould over many years. But both of them had a very healthy respect for one another. When one does science at that level one gets some thick skin.

That's the aspect of science that few experience and even fewer understand. There are many who would exploit the misunderstanding for their own gain.

I think Dawkins has this reputation because people say he has that reputation.

As to his pronouncements on women, I imagine that Lala Ward set him straight on that pretty damned quickly, in spite of the fact that he has not renounced his words. At least he hasn't flapped his gums about women since. I take no comfort in that particular episode. I hope that he didn't either. Too bad he hasn't commented about it. It certainly leaves a big blot on him. It makes me sad.

As always.

[cbayer]

158. I don't question or have any problem with his scientifically based work.

It's his views on religion that I take issue with.

No doubt he is competitive and he's made quite a career out of being the poster child for anti-theism. I don't think there is much scientific about his work in that area, and his trying to couch it as "science' just irritates me even more.

I don't find his "pronouncements" (or his lame t-shirts) in this area very erudite at all, but he certainly did discover an audience.

Hope you got your battery and and are staying warm.

[longship]

160. Cost me $130. (SOB!!!)

But in a small town one is limited, and I didn't have time to shop around.

I am going through heating oil like crazy. I'll have to order another 150 gallons soon, at f*cking $3.60 a gallon. It's very cold here, unusually so. Thankfully my old furnace is pretty efficient and my house is well insulated.

Everything is fine, though. I hope things are fine with you, too.

I'll have cabin fever by spring I imagine, a common affliction around these parts in the north.

[cbayer]

163. Yikes! That's one expensive battery.

We buy golf cart batteries for less.

Do I remember correctly that you have an eco-fan? If not, look it up. Might help with your efficiency.

The one thing I like about that cold (and I don't like it enough to ever go back) is a cozy fire or wood stove. We have a friend with a wood stove on her boat. Now that's a trip.

We are so self-sufficient and energy efficient, but we don't have temperature extremes to deal with.

Things are fine with me. Loving Mexico and starting to prepare for our trip across the Sea of Cortez. My spanish is getting better and better.

I would get cabin fever, too. Stay warm and dry.

[longship]

164. Make sure you take in some whales.

You'll have a whale of a time, no doubt.

[cbayer]

165. We are not likely to miss the whales, we just hope they miss us, lol!

[skepticscott]

162. Show us where he has couched his anti-theism as "science"

as opposed to simply relying on facts and evidence, as any rational and intelligent person does.

Can you? Or are you just making more shit up about Dawkins?

[skepticscott]

159. Sorry, more utter crap

My reaction to him has to do with his arrogant, rigid, dogmatic beliefs and his fundamentalist position that he is right and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

I defy you to cite a single example of what you're claiming. Cite a single example where he has rejected out of hand evidence that proved beyond any doubt that he was wrong.

Everyone who knows you here knows you can't...and won't. You have a personal vendetta against Dawkins that leads you to spout blatant falsehoods about him at every opportunity, not to mention despicably wish for his death.

[trotsky]

179. Nailed it.

Can't, and won't. She convulses with hatred over the strawman Dawkins she's created, and uses it to bash any atheist who voices an opinion she thinks should be censored.

I just wish she'd be honest - it would really help actual discussion instead of this constant sniping and attacking.

[skepticscott]

153. Dogmatic? Horseshit.

When he reacts, it's with evidence...facts and logical arguments. His critics react with religionist blather and anti-atheist, anti-intellectual tone-trolling.

[edhopper]

9. But liberals, atheist, etc..

will debate their position and don't say it isn't proper to question their ideas. They are more than willing to explain why they hold these.
As opposed to those that say religion gets a special pass and people should just be allowed to believe what they want to believe.

[cbayer]

23. Do you exclude religious people from the group you define as "liberals"?

[edhopper]

29. I was quoting the list in Texas' post.

I don't find liberals mind when you question their ideas. I find many (not all) religious people mind very much.
Don't you. or do you find all religious folk open to debate and questions about their faith?

[cbayer]

34. No, I don't find all religious fold open to debate.

I also don't find all non-religious people open to debate or questions about their position.

It is a condition that is in no way exclusive to believers.

[edhopper]

37. I don't think I have ever found a liberal say

"that's just what I believe" and not say anything more. Nor have i talked to an atheist who wouldn't explain his atheism.
Religious beliefs take special place.
You yourself have said we should not question other peoples religious beliefs as long as they aren't harmful. Do you say the same thing about conservatives or socialists or libertarians?

[cbayer]

44. I have never said that people's religious beliefs should not be questioned, but

I have stood up against unfounded attacks on those beliefs and the people that hold them.

This is a site for progressive and liberals. That group includes both religious and non-religious people. It does not include conservatives or libertarians (though it might include socialists).

I also hold the position that holding specific political beliefs is distinctly different that holding religious beliefs, though some disagree with me on this.

Contrary to your experience, I have met atheists who feel no need to explain their lack of beliefs. They say it's the default position and that's that. I've got no problem with that. I don't think believers nor non-believers have any obligations to explain their position, as long as it isn't imposing on anyone else.

[trotsky]

67. Why do you think holding political beliefs is different than holding religious beliefs?

What a great opportunity for a civil, interesting discussion. Please elaborate - why do you feel that way?

[Warpy]

176. The only thing I hate is some religious twit

trying to tell me how I think about things.

[trotsky]

5. This quote explains so much in this group:

Also, some people find clarity threatening. They like muddle, confusion, obscurity. So when somebody does no more than speak clearly it sounds threatening.

[rug]

10. Surely you have a link that illustrates that.

[Goblinmonger]

13. You could start

here

[edhopper]

16. Made me grin.

Thanks.

[rug]

19. And having found nothing, I may end up

here.

No wait, that's where I'd find bitter snark.

[Goblinmonger]

22. Wow

that's kind of a personal attack. Notice I linked to the forum as a whole and didn't take a cheap shot on you.

[rug]

30. Sure, impugn an entire group. What's the word for that?

Don't forget to post the results of your alert.

[Goblinmonger]

51. I didn't alert

You're still on MIRT, I believe. You can verify that.

[rug]

12. And then, there's this nonsense.

RH: Do you believe there is a genetic basis to irrationality?

RD: It would be very surprising if there wasn't a genetic basis to the psychological predispositions which make people vulnerable to religion.

A stupid answer to a stupid question.

I wonder if he also believes there is a genetic basis to the psychological predispositions which make people vulnerable to atheism.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Have you read his book

He does go into the evolutionary reasons for religion.

But, hey, I'll take your word on genetics over that of Dawkins. I mean, hell, what does he know about it? for the impaired

[rug]

27. Does he also go into the evolutionary reasons for atheism?

Don't bother attempting to explain it, just give the chapter. I'd rather read it directly.

I can't wait to see if he, along with Edward O. Wilson, also draws racist conclusions from his sociobiology.

[Goblinmonger]

53. It's in

God Delusion. Can't remember the chapter; it's been a while since I've read it. Can't be hard to find.

[rug]

55. Thanks, I'll see if the library has it.

[Goblinmonger]

62. I think my son has my copy but I'll check and see

if I can find the chapter.

[DreamGypsy]

111. You can find The God Delusion online...

...here: http://knizky.mahdi.cz/21_Richard_Dawkins___The_God_Delusion.pdf

The relevant chapter is 5: The roots of religion

Dawkins chose this quote as the lead-in to the chapter:

To an evolutionary psychologist, the universal extravagance of religious rituals, with their costs in time, resources, pain and privation, should suggest as vividly as a mandrill's bottom that religion may be adaptive. - MAREK KOHN

After a few pages of general introductory material, Dawkins reiterates the quote in the following excerpt, and then proceeds to provide his answers to the question he poses. The explanations and examples in the chapter well worth reading.

Though the details differ across the world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion. Some educated individuals may have abandoned religion, but all were brought up in a religious culture from which they usually had to make a conscious decision to depart. The old Northern Ireland joke, 'Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?', is spiked with bitter truth. Religious behaviour can be called a human universal in the same way as heterosexual behaviour can. Both generalizations allow individual exceptions, but all those exceptions understand only too well the rule from which they have departed. Universal features of a species demand a Darwinian explanation.

Obviously, there is no difficulty in explaining the Darwinian advantage of sexual behaviour. It is about making babies, even on those occasions where contraception or homosexuality seems to belie it. But what about religious behaviour? Why do humans fast, kneel, genuflect, self-flagellate, nod maniacally towards a wall, crusade, or otherwise indulge in costly practices that can consume life and, in extreme cases, terminate it?

[rug]

113. Excellent! Thanks, let me take a look at iit.

[rug]

118. Ok, here is his premise:

Religious behaviour can be called a human universal in the same way as heterosexual behaviour can. Both generalizations allow individual exceptions, but all those exceptions understand only too well the rule from which they have departed. Universal features of a species demand a Darwinian explanation.

He has yet to describe whether atheism is, or will be, "a human universal", let alone explain why or why not. (I'll set aside for the moment the disturbing implications of calling "heterosexual behavior" a human universal.)

Generally, this type of attempt to attribute culture and cultural behavior to universal scientific principles (and here, he is only applying those narrow scientific principles in which he was trained) turns out to be flat out as wrong as phrenology. In other words, woo.

But let's assume he's correct, that religion is simply a companion to "anting" or "bowering", where is the similar analysis of atheism? Keeping to his analytical framework, is it "a human universal" or simply an evolutionary aberration?

I look forward to his Darwinian explanation of atheism.

Thanks for the link.

[edhopper]

144. Because people

don't act in only genetically predetermined ways. We are not creatures who behave solely based on our genes.
I would say he sees atheism as an individual exception. But there are some universal behaviors that point to a genetic underpinning. The disapproval of incest is another that fits this category.

Good that your understanding of genetic biology is so much better than his that you can claim Dawkins is "flat out wrong".

[rug]

145. Nice appeal to authority there, ed.

I don't blame you, it was inevitable.

Sociobiology is bunk, as this chapter amply demonstrates.

The point stands. Woo.

[edhopper]

146. of course

Genetics and evolution have nothing to do with behavior.
I guess we just shouldn't listen to scientists who have spent their lives studying a subject, cause authority and stuff.
Your opinion of behavioral predisposition is noted and I shall file it in the appropriate place.

[rug]

147. Rephrasing doesn't save your argument.

I'm sure you understand the difference between "Religion is the product of "Darwinian evolution" and "Genetics and evolution have nothing to do with behavior."

[edhopper]

154. I could see how the idea that

Religion is just a byproduct of evolution and not because of people organizing around some divine given enl9ghtenment might trouble you.
You seem to think this idea of a genetic component to religion is fringe science, you would be wrong.

[rug]

156. I tend to have that reaction to claptrap.

Or would you rather deal with your personal insinuation?

[cbayer]

127. And he wonders why he gets hate mail?

[muriel_volestrangler]

143. Why would anything in the post you reply to indicate hate mail should be expected?

There's nothing there to remotely justify hate mail.

[cbayer]

148. I didn't say it was justified, just that it's not surprising.

When somebody so rabidly attacks another group of people, one should expect some pretty strong responses.

I would expect hate male (equivalent to what he received) if someone were to post something this vicious about atheists.

He knows that. That's how he rolls.

[muriel_volestrangler]

150. What's 'vicious' or 'rabid'?

[cbayer]

151. Gee, I don't know.

He calls religion "time-consuming, wealth-consuming" and the religious as having "hostility-provoking rituals and anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies"

He implies that if one is educated, one can possibly see through this and abandon it. Through that implication, he appears to be saying that uneducated people can't do that.

He says that praying Jews are "maniacally nodding" and accuses religions of consuming, even terminating life.

Again, I would suggest that if this kind of language and tone were used to describe atheists , which clearly could be done if one looked at only a small group and extrapolated it to the whole, one might expect some hate mail in response.

And then there is that whole part about GLBT people being exceptions who have deviated from some sort of rule that I can't even make sense of.

Now, we could argue this point by point because you, being much more in sync with him than I, are going to read it differently.

Or I could compose a diatribe against atheists that had the same feeling.

But I don't think either of those things will change the plain fact that you don't see how offensive and inflammatory Dawkins can be in his attacks on religion.

In the end, it is not surprising that you might not see any of this as vicious or rapid or why it might provoke hate mail, but it doesn't surprise me at all.

Did you catch the Onion piece?

[edhopper]

17. Actually he isn't alone in this

it is probably an idea supported by most geneticists. Has to do with looking for patterns and such.

[rug]

28. "most geneticists". That's convincing.

Got data?

[edhopper]

33. Yes

but I was pointing out this is a position that is not unique to him. It is also speculative, as you can see the way he states it. "I wouldn't be surprised".
In the end, an atheist and a believer would look at it differently, because I would guess a person who believes in God would think God would have something to do with any predisposition to religion.

[rug]

38. Have you an opinion on sociobiolgy?

This notion is a species of that.

[edhopper]

45. I think it is part of the picture

but not the whole thing as people like E O Wilson seem to say.

It's an evolving field.

[cbayer]

25. Based on this, one might conclude that there is an adaptational advantage to

"vulnerability" to religion, which he equates with irrationality.

Otherwise, it would be extinguished.

He gets things very muddled when he tries to mix his favorite topics.

[rug]

31. A prejudged mind tends to see things in a blurry way.

[edhopper]

35. Not at all

he is saying that some of the adapted skills, like seeing patterns or imagination or the tendency for social groups, which can serve the species very well, can also lead to religion and religious beliefs. This is hardly new territory in anthropology.
Inherited traits can also lead to bad consequences for a species, it doesn't always lead to extinction.

[cbayer]

36. No, but specific traits that do not lend an adaptational advantage will most

likely be extinguished over time.

This is clearly not the case for religion.

While he takes the position that religion is merely a side effect, it may, in fact, be that religion itself provided the adaptational advantage.

Chicken or egg?

[edhopper]

43. I'll explain again

he is saying religion might be the result of other adaptive traits, not that religion itself is a genetic adaption.
These traits benefit the survival of our ancestors and religion might be a by product.
We also must understand that our genetic traits were formed on the African Savannah and many could be counter productive in the modern world.

[cbayer]

46. No need to explain again. I understand what he is saying perfectly well.

I am just proposing that he may have it backwards.

If one believes in evolution and natural selection, then the argument that our genetic traits were formed a long time ago and far away and, therefore, now of no relevance or even counter productive, is false on it's face.

Evolution never stops.

[edhopper]

49. And it takes a long time

or is sporadic.

Our genetic traits have a great deal of relevance, it's just that some may not fit in the world we live in.

Mankind has not really changed genetically in 10s of thousands of years, not uncommon in a species.

[cbayer]

50. Yes it can take a long time, but it can also happen

very quickly.

But that's not really the point.

Mutations continue to occur and the genome is changing at an unprecedented rate. Here is a fascinating article on this:

http://www.news.wisc.edu/14548

At any rate, I maintain that religion has provided an evolutionary advantage and that as long as it does so, it will not be extinguished…

despite the desires of some.

For a geneticist to call it a disease that must be cured is really just a testament to his own rigid thinking when it comes to religion.

[edhopper]

57. That might be true

but it doesn't negate the idea that religion is the result of adaptation and not due to any of the beliefs of those religions being real or not.
Which is what he is saying.

[cbayer]

59. It doesn't negate it, I agree.

I wasn't making the argument about whether a god or gods is real, just that religion itself may represent an evolutionary advantage and has persisted because it still does.

[edhopper]

64. His argument

which I think is worthwhile, is that religion itself is not an adaption at all, but a result of other adaptive traits.
Is there a religious gene, or do several factors make mankind prone to religion.
To use an simplified analogy I've seen in talking about evolution, there is no ice cream gene, but other genetic predispositions make ice cream very desirable to people. So we would ask if religion is ice cream

[cbayer]

66. I understand that that is his position and it doesn't surprise,

because he would be extremely reluctant to give religion the kind of credit that would come with seeing it as an adaptation itself. He would then have to acknowledge that there might be some positive advantages to religion. Instead he can dismiss it as a side effect.

While one can make that argument, it is not necessarily the correct conclusion.

It's also easy to dismiss religion when it is reduced to something as simple as ice cream. But it is so much more complex than that.

[edhopper]

73. I think looking at religion as an adaptive trait

or the result of other adaptive traits is one thing. Whether it is good or bad, or benefited or hurt mankind is a separate discussion.
It is also another discussion if it has outlived it's usefulness.
Do you think this should also be looked out without accepting any of the beliefs or religious reasons people belong to any religion?

[cbayer]

75. One of the points here is that if and when it outlives any

adaptational usefulness, it will extinguish over time.

Unless humans function under at somewhat different set of evolutionary rules, which they might.

What do you mean "without accepting any of the beliefs or religious reasons people belong to any religion"?

You lost me on that one.

[edhopper]

78. First

I think we disagree whether religion itself is an adaptive trait or the by product of other traits. Which is fine since this is a speculative area.
So your first point is turns on that. But it would just be our different informed opinion at this time.
I meant I would think that believers might think that God has something to do with peoples belief in religious ideas.
So do we look at religion as people following the laws of a God or gods, or doing what they say, or ask why religion developed in mankind in terms of evolution. Saying it is a religious trait would be saying that there is no need to invoke any supernatural element into the discussion.
I would say the ubiquitous nature of religion, while beliefs are as disparate as they could be is one of the reasons for my agnosticism.

[cbayer]

81. Yes, we do disagree on that.

Well, to be exact, you appear to accept the Dawkins hypothesis while I think it may be correct but there are alternative hypotheses which may also be correct.

Very good questions you are asking, and like pretty much everything theological, my answer remains the same:

I have no freaking idea.

People have been debating these points for a very long time and I have no expectation that we are any closer to the answers.

Which is why I maintain the position that until there is evidence that supports one position or another, I will keep a rather laissez faire attitude.

If you want to believe, believe. Don't want to, don't. Just don't use either position to impose your personal beliefs or lack thereof on others.

[edhopper]

86. Well we do have the understanding

that behavior can be genetic and not imposed by some supernatural agent, as was believed in the past.
So I think that gets us a little closer to a more rational answer.
The answer can be discussed without any theological component.
The Gods the religion follows is immaterial to the question of why we have religion in an anthropological sense.

[cbayer]

117. It can certainly be discussed without any theological input

and often is.

But here we are in the religion group, where the input of theology is the issue.

Should you wish to discuss the issues without the consideration of theological input, this is probably not the place to do it.

[edhopper]

123. Really?

You ask what i meant, and when i explained you say i shouldn't discuss it here.
Okay try this.
Since we can view all religion as a result of adaptation the various theologies are meaningless when asking why there is religion. They are just so much clutter and contradictory myths and ideas. Created to justify the formation of whichever religion someone belongs to.
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Looking at the reason mankind forms religion, as part of this thread does, the theology is just flotsam that can be discarded.
Did mankind form religion because some divine being showed them they should, as most religions teach? Or is religion in the make up of humans, and they find a theology to match their circumstances? If you believe the former, could you tell me which divine beings are real and which isn't, as they all can't be as their religions describe.
How's that?

[cbayer]

124. I'm a little tired of being told that I am saying that people shouldn't discuss things here.

It's kind of an urban legend without merit.

What I said was that if you want to discuss something without taking the religious aspects into consideration, this is probably not the place to do it because religion is very likely to become part of the conversation.

I've never heard the approach that some divine being showed humans they should develop religion. The take I have had is that deities were revealed and those who were willing/able to see did.

So the argument could be made is that the god(s) are fairly passive in this process and that some people discover them because they are receptive. But I would suggest that it is no more offensive than calling people's religious beliefs meaningless, clutter, contradictory myths, without significance, and flotsam that can be discarded.

I understand that this is an argument that is offensive to non-believers, as they are portrayed as non-receptive or unable to get the picture.

And I would also make the argument that if there were god(s) that that entity might have the ability to present very differently to different groups of people, leading to different flavors of religion.

[edhopper]

130. I don't find that argument offensive

condescending by those who think they are special and have been touched. But not offensive. It says much more about those arguing this than about non believers.
And this is absolutely the right place to discuss whether the theology of a religion has an bearing whether the basis for that religion, i.e. whether any Gods exist is pertinent.

And those that hold their religious laws as absolute, who follow the tenets so that every aspect of their lives are controlled by their belief, that they are doing what God commands. How does your picture of God fit into that. Why would a God tell one group that woman need to cover themselves while telling another that they can't drive on Saturday, and so forth?

[cbayer]

132. In looking back at the subthread, I think I misread what you were saying

and withdraw my inaccurate reaction to it.

I think I understand better now what your point was.

While there are clearly some who are what you describe, it is my take that most believers are not absolutists. They use their religion for guidance and try to live by the tenets of their specific religion, but recognize that they fail and generally skip over the parts that don't "fit".

I don't have a picture of god at all, but, as I said, there may be social or other reasons why someone's god may tell one group that women should cover up and leave that out of another.

That's speculative, of course, but I don't have a lot of problem seeing that as a possibility.

I was raised to see that there are different belief systems and that there is not one absolutely correct one.

[edhopper]

137. Thanks for that

Not absolute, but I think far more think there image of God or the Gods is the correct one than you do. If it was only a matter of following the moral code that would be one thing, but the immense amount of time in rituals and reading "the word of God" points to a more specific belief.
You might not have a picture of God, but most believers I've run across do.

[cbayer]

138. I'm not a believer, so that is what may confuse you.

I am a religionist in the same way that a man can be a feminist. I think there is much good in religion and am very supportive of that part of it.

That's why I am anti-anti-theist, lol. Those that thing religion is bad and needs to go away completely miss the good and proposing to throw the baby out with the bathwater is a very bad idea, imo.

[edhopper]

139. I know

that is why I was talking about what I see with many believers and not your view of God.

I guess you would call me an anti-theist, though I wouldn't call myself that. As i see the basis of every religion to be false since there is no supernatural (my view). They are acting under a premiss that a God or gods wants or commands them. Which justifies their actions. Good or bad.

And it matters, because once you accept the notion that behavior based on what a supernatural entity commands is okay, who gets to decide which is for the good?

The phrase "it's just what I believe" for me is a non-argument without merit.

[cbayer]

140. You may or may not be one. The definition is pretty clear.

Being critical of religion is ok. Challenging religion is ok. But, imo, wanting to eliminate religion because you think it poisons everything and equating it to a disease is not ok.

Your individual rejection of all religion as false is your personal position. If you hold that out as truth, then I would (again) propose that that is exactly what fundamentalists do, and I reject that.

As long as people hear their commandments from god as instructions to do things that I think further social justice and civil liberty, I don't really think it's much of my business. But if the things they take away lead them to trample on the rights of others, we are going to have a problem.

"It's just what I believe" is all right with me, but I don't feel the need to argue with most believers.

[edhopper]

142. Would i like there to be no religion?

As John Lennon said, I can imagine.
Do I think we should eliminate it by any means other the application of reason in the hope of convincing people to abandon their iron age thinking? No.

Could you show me a single religion that only promotes that? Telling someone that is doing God's will that they must conform not to God but to your criteria of social good isn't a realistic proposition.

How is "I just believe the story of Moses or Jesus or Mohamed is real" different from "I just believes Gay people can't marry" or "Life begins at conception", other than your personal judgement?

[cbayer]

149. Didn't say you would like that. I said that what an anti-atheist wants.

And I didn't say that people had to conform to my criteria for social good. I said that I would support those who's ideas of social good were similar to mine, whether those ideas have a religious basis or not.

As to your last statement, the differences are enormous. Belief in religious figures does not in and of itself constitute beliefs that would impact the rights of others to marry or make personal decisions about their own bodies.

The judgement I would make would be on the latter, but not on the former, as there are many who believe in religious figures and who hold positions on GLBT civil rights and a woman's right to choose that are the exact opposite of those you describe.

[PassingFair]

184. Maybe it has persisted because in the recent past, you could get your head cut off for calling out..

the Emperor's lack of clothing.

The Enlightenment was only 300 or so years ago.

Not even a blink away in evolutionary times.

And we can so easily be plunged back into the dark ages...
I will choose a profession of belief over death any day.

If coming out as an atheist got me or my family KILLED,
as it STILL does in parts of the world, I would keep my
mouth shut.

[Goblinmonger]

54. There was an adaptational advantage

It's in his book. It's a good read.

You do know he's kind of an expert on evolution, right?

[longship]

61. Well, that would come along with any advantages.

It's the difference between making a type I error (ignoring a true null hypothesis) and a type II error (ignoring a false null hypothesis).

If the grass rustles it may be the wind, or it may be a hungry lion. The null hypothesis here is that it is a hungry lion.

If you commit the type I error and ignore the rustling, you get eaten by the hungry lion that's really there.

If you commit the type II error and get the heck out of there, the fact that there was no hungry lion makes it a neutral outcome.

In one case you are dead; in the other you live. Evolution would support avoidance of making the type I error in this case.

There may also be evolutionary pressure to believe people of authority, for instance ones parents, for the same reasons. That might give something like religion an evolutionary hand hold. Human behavior is complex and evolutionary psychology is far from a settled discipline. But these are the types of things Dawkins (and especially Daniel Dennett) have been talking and writing about for years.

Religion is unique to humans, as far as anybody knows. It's impact on just about everything has been profound. Maybe it's time to point a jaundiced eye at it and try to figure it out.

If it is an evolutionary adaptation that tells us something very important.

Sorry, but I could not resist geeking out on this.

...
Cold here. Can I send you some? We've got plenty here.

[cbayer]

65. I like the type I/type II explanation

but I think it goes deeper than that. I think it also includes issues having to do with community, family, common goals/traditions/values.

Clearly these are advantages for other species. I guess the question is why this became religion for humans.

And I totally agree that there is so much more to learn about it.

No thanks on the cold. It's pretty darn perfect here today - low 70's, clear skies, light breeze.

Can I send you some of that?

[longship]

68. Well, my examples were just to give people an idea of how it might work.

Other examples very well might include those other attributes you cite.

It's just too bad that evolutionary psychology isn't a settled deal. It might not have any basis at all which means it might not even be good science. That's being debated quite vigorously and both Dawkins and Dennett acknowledge this issue.

...

I'll take all the warmth you can spare. It's 9F right now. My car battery is dead and on the charger right now. Gotta go into town this afternoon to buy a new one.

Regards.

[cbayer]

70. It certainly is not a settled field.

I still find the fields of "soft sciences" troublesome. Too many variables. Too hard to get good controls.

But I anticipate continual improvement.

In the meantime, much of what I read is highly speculative

Best of luck in getting your battery. We carry an enormous amount of battery power. Wish I could send you some.

[Dawson Leery]

103. k/r

[idendoit]

114. There is a third possibilty.

That he really is a misogynistic creep.

[el_bryanto]

116. Based on what? nt

[rug]

119. Probably his rant on elevatorgate.

http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

[hrmjustin]

120. It is very healthy to question religion.

People get defensive but people need to listen to outside criticism.

[dimbear]

121. Healthy in the sense that it's good for a person's breadth and vista, not necessarily healthy

when ropes, wood, matches, and authorities were handy.

(History suggests.)

Not every age was so lucky as to have a pleasantly interacting internet forum.

[rug]

122. I can't wait till we get one.

[dimbear]

136. In the middle ages, there was a friendly custom called trial by ordeal. Questions were settled

by both contenders holding their hands in the fire as long as required, longest winning, and that settled the issue.

I'm comparatively satisfied with this.

Factual actual is that some of the responses are astoundingly good. Others, well....... and you get to pick and choose.

[skepticscott]

161. It's very healthy to be able to accept the truth about religion

Paying bogus lip service to "doubt" and "lively discussions" at the dinner table that inevitably lead back to the same belief you started with are not signs of good health.

[hrmjustin]

170. Can you please elaborate more on your statement?

[skepticscott]

171. Is this the new tactic

that your clique has secretly decided to adopt?

If you're confused, please tell us all exactly and specifically what you're confused about, and I'll be happy to enlighten you. A vague and non-specific response will be taken as evidence that your request is just an attempt to distract and divert.

[hrmjustin]

172. My friend all I ask is for you to expand on your thoughts.

I assure you I have no other motive.

[skepticscott]

173. Ah, so the similarity of your post 170

and cbayer's post 169 is just a crazy coincidence?

And you were asked to provide specifics about what you were confused about. Are you able to do that, or not? If you're not, you'll have to be satisfied with my statement as it stands. It was clear enough to most.

[hrmjustin]

174. ok scott! The iorny was I really was asking an honest question. so sorry to bother you.

[skepticscott]

175. Yes, people tend to type badly

when they've been caught out. And I note that once again, you can't provide specifics about what you were unclear on, which confirms my suspicion that your "honest question" was bogus.

[hrmjustin]

177. Scott I give you my word I was just asking you to expand on your answer. If I didnot explain it

Properly please forgive me Scott.

[skepticscott]

180. Obsequiousness neither becomes you nor convinces me

Neither does insincerity.

Answer my direct question and specify what you're confused about, or stop wasting bandwidth with diversions.

Last chance.

[hrmjustin]

181. What did you mean by this?

"Paying bogus lip service to "doubt" and "lively discussions" at the dinner table that inevitably lead back to the same belief you started with are not signs of good health."

[edhopper]

185. I'll try to explain in a less confrontational way.

Scott seems to be annoyed and thinks you are disingenuous. I'll take both of you at face value. (yeah I'm speaking for someone else, but what the hey.)
I believe he is saying:
Discussing ones beliefs and express doubt, when in the end one still believes the same thing because of faith and disregarding the rational arguments might be called lip service rather than a sign of healthy critical reasoning.

I am not asking you to reply to this assessment, just wanted to clarify what was being said.

[hrmjustin]

186. Thanks! Faith and doubt are always present in me.

[edhopper]

187. I know you are a believer.

And i promise i am not asking this to get you into a debate about your beliefs. I am just curious. Since you say doubt is always present, have there been any beliefs you have had that you doubted, and faith aside, you still realized they weren't true and disregarded them?

[hrmjustin]

188. My faith has evolved over time.

There are things that I used to believe but don't now.

Sometimes I go through a dry spell with my faith.

[edhopper]

189. Thanks.

[skepticscott]

190. Give us some examples…3 or 4 will do.

We're all curious what about your religion you don't believe any more, and why. Was it reason and new evidence that convinced you otherwise? Because if they did, then what you had wasn't "faith" to begin with, just convictions based on poorer evidence or emotional need. True "faith" needs no evidence to support it.

And do you also acknowledge on that basis that every single thing you've claimed in here to simply believe because you believe it may also end up being false, and rejected by you by this time next year?

[hrmjustin]

191. huh?

[skepticscott]

192. Give us some examples

of what you used to believe in your religion, but don't any more, and tell us why you believed in them once, but not now.

[hrmjustin]

193. Well I used to believe praying to saints worked, and now I really don't believe it anymore.

I used to believe God made decisions on who died, and I don't anymore. I used to think if I prayed for something it would happen, and I really don't believe that anymore.

I really can not pinpoint when it changed.

[skepticscott]

194. Well, I asked twice and still only got half an answer

WHY do you no longer believe these things, if they were based on faith in the first place? Why don't you still believe them simply because you believe them, because you have "faith" that they're true, in spite of anything?

[hrmjustin]

195. I guess I came to the realization that God does not decide things.

Ig God loves us all why should some suffer and others not. I believe in God but I have many questions as to why things are as they care.

So now I believe God gives us strength but does not decide how things go for us.

[edhopper]

196. I offer you this quote from Epicurus, Greece 300 BC

Not asking for a response, but something for you to ponder.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

[skepticscott]

197. And why would "faith" not let you believe

that it was simply something that you couldn't understand, but totally true, nonetheless? Is a "realization" a matter of actually being convinced of something, or just a matter of emotional need, with nothing to back it up?

Again, why does true "faith" concern itself with evidence? It's not "faith" if it does…it's critical thinking.

[hrmjustin]

198. Well those of us with fait are capable of critical thinking.

I came to my conclusion because I thought it through.

People's faith can change or evolve.

[cbayer]

182. Code red, code red.

Meet me in the treehouse and don't forget your secret decoder ring this time.

Burn this message after reading.

[hrmjustin]

183. Lol! I really do value his opinion.