Everyone's a skeptic - about other religions.

[greyl]

(Talk for Marshall University chapter, Campus Freethought Alliance, Sept. 10, 1997)

By James A. Haught

Religion is an extremely touchy topic. Church members often become angry if anyone questions their supernatural dogmas. (Bertrand Russell said this is because they subconsciously sense that their beliefs are irrational.) So I try to avoid confrontations that can hurt feelings. Nearly everyone wants to be courteous.

But sometimes disputes can't be avoided. If you think the spirit realm is imaginary, and if honesty makes you say so, you may find yourself under attack. It has happened to many doubters. Thomas Jefferson was called a "howling atheist." Leo Tolstoy was called an "impious infidel."

Well, if you wind up in a debate, my advice is: Try to be polite. Don't let tempers flare, if you can help it. Appeal to your accuser's intelligence.

I've hatched some questions you may find useful. They're designed to show that church members, even the most ardent worshipers, are skeptics too - because they doubt every magical system except their own.

If a churchman berates you, perhaps you could reply like this:

* * *
You're an unbeliever, just like me. You doubt many sacred dogmas. Let me show you:
more

[The Straight Story]

1. Same could be said of any belief (political, sociological, etc)

Does not mean we want freepers here toiling away preaching their faith anymore than they want us there preaching our beliefs.

[Random_Australian]

4. Uh, would you run by me how the second sentence relates to the OP?

(Not bieng a gimboid, I am asking genuinely)

[The Straight Story]

10. Pointing out

That beliefs don't have to involve a god/church to be 'beliefs'. I think the OP is good - just that it applies to more than just beliefs that involve a deity.

[Random_Australian]

12. Ah, I see. I just thought since you said "we don't want freepers on here"

You meant that using the logic of the OP we would have to accept them.

Thus the confusion.

Thanks for taking the time to answer though.

[The Straight Story]

13. as an aside:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ2osNmKvNc

A cool video :)

[Richard Steele]

2. You state an important concept, and you phrase it well.

Too bad people are IDIOTS, eh?

[bluesbassman]

3. How about if you look at it this way.

in the article, Mr. Haught says:

So, if we can show people that some sacred "truths" are nutty, maybe subconscious logic will seep through, and they'll realize that if some magical beliefs are irrational, all may be.

I'm reminded of Thomas Edison's reply when asked how it felt to fail so many times while developing the light bulb:

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.

So, just because I examine other religions, and find that the don't ring true for me, that doesn't mean that the beliefs I hold are not valid for me.

[greyl]

5. You believe you've found the light bulb that works, eh?

The other people are illumined by imaginary light?
I think that bulb should be recalled because it tends to start fires and kill people all the while being careless toward our limited natural resources.

You're analogy doesn't quite work, but it's fun to experiment with. Does your definition of examining other religions meet a similar standard as performing a successful scientific experiment?
Casual awareness doesn't equal a whole-hearted test drive, ya know? ;)

[bluesbassman]

9. For me, yes.

I said that the other religions don't ring true for me. The article in the OP is an attempt to show that ones skepticism for other religious beliefs should cause a reasonable person to be skeptical of a belief that one finds to be true for them. I don't hold that view.

My use of the Edison analogy was based on the idea that Edison believed, based on his research, that the bulb he was testing would work. When the experiment failed, he did not give up, but continued his research and tried again. I'm not implying that faith is based on scientific fact, but rather I'm countering Haught's suggestion that because one is skeptical of other beliefs, it's then becomes imperative that one must be skeptical of ones own beliefs.

And for the record, my "bulb" has never caused me to start a fire, be careless with natural resources or certainly not kill anyone.

[greyl]

11. His experiments didn't fail, they were successful.

That was his point. The designs he was testing failed, not his tests. The results of his experiments were valid. Today there are thousands of different kinds of man made light sources that work for everyone. A lightbulb that only worked for greyl would be pretty worthless in the grand scheme of things, wouldn't it? (Especially if I believed it was the only true light in the world.) Wouldn't I be remiss by not using a bulb that was most safe for the entire community of life? ;)

(really squeezing all the juice out of the analogy now, let's mix some metaphors)

edit: Dang, and isn't it true that your bulb isn't as personal and innocuous as you're making it out to be? Is it really just a harmless drop in the ocean, or is it a tsunami maker?

[SPKrazy]

91. Why Should His Examination Of Other Religions Meet

"a similar standard as performing a successful scientific experiment?"

I'm just a little confused with that one

since when does belief need to meet the limited standards of a scientific experiment? (A scientific experiment is usually very narrowly defined to one concept set out to prove or reproduce past results whereas a spiritual belief is usually a broad concept not really prone to be put to the test of the scientific method)

[Silent3]

24. What is "valid for me" supposed to actually mean?

There either is or is not an invisible Shiva out there that wants its penis prayed for.
There either is or is not a God who cares if you eat meat on Friday or pork any day.

What does "valid for you" have to do with it?

Is the metric of truth "whatever gets you through the night"? Does Shiva really, really exist for those who pray for Shiva's penis, and find that doing so "works for them", yet somehow it is simultaneously true in some weirdly compartmentalized reality that Shiva absolutely does not exist and/or care about penis prayers for those who say such a ritual "doesn't work for them"?

Would some of Edison's failed light bulbs have worked if he gave them to other people who believed in the design of those light bulbs sincerly enough?

[greyl]

29. Yeah, I think it's usually the affected tolerance of ecumenical

faith salad shooters.

[SPKrazy]

92. His Beliefs Are "Valid" To Him

he may actually mean that from time to time he reproduces the same feelings and attitude-more in line with reliability than validity.


Probably also not the technical "valid" in the scientific sense is being used here, more the idea that his beliefs are "true" or meaningful for him. Hence they "work" in his life in the sense that he feels strenghthened, supported, etc. by them. Now I'm stretching on all of this because I have no idea what he means or doesn't mean, just guessing.

[Kiouni]

6. i was made to watch

one of these video's in a class. Ohh did it piss me off,
but this guy (the wall builder guy not me) disagrees with you

http://www.wallbuilders.com/

[greyl]

7. You mean Barton?

What part does he disagree with?
Does he embrace Hinduism and Wicca?

[Kiouni]

8. sorry i should

have clarified, yes david barton says jefferson and all of the founding fathers were against a separation of church and state.

And no i don't think he's into wicca, but that would make him less of a dip shit

[Zhade]

43. Then Barton's a fucking idiot, because that's bullshit.

Jefferson himself used the phrase and spoke of an iron-clad defense of the separation of church and state.

Barton is completely, utterly wrong.

[SPKrazy]

93. You Are Correct Zhade!

Jefferson was a strong advocate of a separation of church and state

as I understand he was more of a Deist than a Christian, and he understood the concept that once you have a theocracy in place, then you LOSE freedom because everyone either has to believe the same way, or they are relegated to second class citizenship (or worse)

As a citizen of this country, I don't want anyone teaching my children how to pray, what to worship or not worship, except me, or a church that I take them to.

not the schools
not the government
not the mayor
not the coach
not the President
not the governor
not the state in any way shape or form

Jefferson would agree

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMMNG]

15. Let's not go there again

It is not only offensive to religious people, but also to those with mental illness. Painting those you disagree with/don't like as "mentally ill" suggests that having a mental illness is something bad/shameful/detestable. Mental illness already carries enough of a stigma in our society without this sort of behavior making it even worse. Disagreement with others' beliefs can be shown with greater sensitivity to people who already suffer enough indignities.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

17. The Matrix? "It's always the other guy who's insane." ;) nt edit:

In other words, isn't it possible that there's a little room for political correctness? (Or tact if you prefer?)

[Dissenting_Prole]

20. The sane people...

are the ones who, at least, say, "I believe _________________, but really, I don't know anything for sure based on this reality that I exist in".

[greyl]

21. Fine, but back to the art of persuasion... nt

[bluesbassman]

18. You are way off base,

And you have been around long enough to know better.

This sub thread has been up for over seven hours and I'm the only one to point this out?

Political correctness? Sheesh, give me a break.

It's been fun, but I'll have to say so long....

[Dissenting_Prole]

19. Well, I don't think I am.

And you have been around long enough to know better.

You're right. I worked for 10 years editing documentary stories for the world's only multi-faith TV network. Sikhs, jains, jews, christians, I've heard it all. And none of it makes any sense, whether it's how you kill a chicken, or handle a holy book, or wear a garment.

If I stayed another year I would have needed months of therapy to separate what is real and what is fantasy.

[beam me up scottie]

33. "This sub thread has been up for over seven hours"

Sorry I'm late!

His claim that religious belief is a type of mental illness appears to be a religious belief.

I wonder, are we being intolerant of his belief?

[Dissenting_Prole]

34. No, it's not a religious belief.

According to dictionary.com, "religious", in this context, means:

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

If anything, my views might be based on "scientific" definitions. "Scientific", according to dictionary.com:

Of, relating to, or employing the methodology of science.

Now, let's check dictionary.com for the definition of "delusional".

A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness

Religious people, even moderates, are f*cking delusional. So, let's all come out and admit that we are full of crap and don't really know.

[beam me up scottie]

38. So your belief that people of faith are mentally ill is a delusion?

Works for me. :evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

50. Your definitions are inadequate, much like your reasoning skills.

But since your opinions appear to be limited to what you can scrounge up on dictionary.com, I'm not surprised.

If one wanted to research the issue, a good place to start would be Wikipedia.

Delusion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Delusion

A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).

Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders and particularly in schizophrenia.
Contents
1 Psychiatric definition
2 Diagnostic issues
3 See also
4 Further reading
5 References

Psychiatric definition

Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:
certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

These criteria still live on in modern psychiatric diagnosis. In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:
A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith).

Your views aren't "based on "scientific" definitions" at all.
On the contrary, they appear to be based on ignorance and intolerance.

Your admittance that you "are full of crap" is the only part of your post that makes any sense.

[NMMNG]

59. Do you actually know anything about mental illness?

I mean other than the stereotypical garbage you see on television or read in pulp novels?

I do, and I am telling you that standard religious belief does not constitute mental illness.

[NMMNG]

30. No, really, they're not

At least not in any higher incidence than any other group. The claim that all religious people are mentally ill is just as rude and inaccurate as the claim that all atheists are immoral.

Some religious people may be ignorant of/choose to ignore evidence based realities by choice (e.g. global warming, peak oil, overpopulation, etc.), but that does not make them mentally ill. It just makes them foolish. However everyone is foolish to some extent. Everyone makes unwise choices despite evidence that shows they are unhealthy or dangerous. They smoke, eat too much or eat unhealthy foods, drink to excess, use hard street drugs, engage in risky sex, etc. Claiming religious people are the only ones who ignore reality is to ignore reality oneself.

[okasha]

40. You're confusing religious and non-religious questions

Look at it this way:

There's good evidence for global warming.
There's good evidence that peak oil is upon us.
There's good evidence for depletion of all resources.
There's good evidence that clean water is a global issue.
There's good evidence that were approaching population overshoot.
'There's good evidence that the US dollar is practically worthless, and the Federal Reserve is not a federal institution.
There's good evidence that our food is no longer healthy.
There's good evidence that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
There's good evidence that elements within the US government were complicit in 9/11.

These are the realities we all must face now.

None of these is an inherently religious issue. The problems you've listed are environmental, economic and political. Religion may color a given person's response to these issues, but so will their political and economic outlook and the degree to which they have informed themselves about the underlying science.

[Zebedeo]

25. What a stunningly original idea!

I had never heard that before in this forum! Kudos to you for your original thinking!

[beam me up scottie]

32. The belief that religious faith is a type of mental illness is ignorant.

But don't let that stop you.

You have just as much right to make a fool out of yourself as anyone else.

[Dissenting_Prole]

35. No, you've just been conditioned to bellieve that.

Just like most of us have been conditioned to laugh at people who believe we were created by aliens.

Just like many of us have been conditioned to feel bad for saying anything negative about Jews.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. You know, I nearly agree with you.

Claiming that religious people are mentally ill *is* more or less on a par with claiming that we've been visited by aliens and that Jews are evil.

Yes, I have been "conditioned" to believe that antisemitism is bad and that there is no evidence for alien life and that religious people are not mentally ill, in the sense that that's the conclusion that everything I've observed has led me to.

[beam me up scottie]

39. How the fuck do you know WHAT I've been "conditioned to bellieve(sic)"?

How is one "conditioned" to laugh, feel bad or believe something?

You need to start doing some research before you post such ridiculous claims.

Your reasoning sucks as badly as your spelling.

And DU's dictionary can only fix the latter.

[Dissenting_Prole]

48. If you're going to pick at me because of a typo...

then we're not going to be able to have a debate.

I'm going outside to weed the garden now.

[beam me up scottie]

49. I'm "picking at" your ignorance and intolerance of religious beliefs

The garden will survive, do us all a favor and go to the library instead.

Or, if you're short on time, try the condensed version: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=83182&mesg_id=83351

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. I think it's actually tautological.

By definition, you've been conditioned to believe exactly those things you do believe.

C. S. Lewis referred to it as "Bulverism", IIRC - the theory that to refute someone's position you merely had to explain why they held that position. "Oh, he would think that - he's a communist/Catholic/Christian etc".

[beam me up scottie]

58. Right.

Because we free thinkers are known for following the herd.

He hasn't exactly given this a lot of thought, has he?

[Zebedeo]

64. Major props to you, BMUS

:yourock:

You walk the walk.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Thanks, Zeb.

But most of the atheists here do the same thing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

88. I suspect black propaganda. -nt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Propaganda

[beam me up scottie]

89. I like how you think.

That was my conclusion as well.

How original. :sarcasm:

[SPKrazy]

94. Thank You Doctor Pole

I've been wondering what was happening to me

now I realize I've been mentally ill all this time.

As I look around I realize there are millions of us.

How will we ever get the treatment we need?

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evoman]

22. Does politeness really have that much effect,,,

when your very opinion, no matter how its stated,is offensive? I can not REALLY give my opinion on religion to religious people. I don't JUST not have belief in god...my thoughts and opinions on religion go FAR past that, into the offensive realm. Not that I want to claim that I am any better at being offended..I don't think I am. When people tell, no matter how politely, that god loves me but that I have to accept Jesus to be saved from an eternity in hell, I feel like kicking them in the teeth. I find the idea intellectually offensive. Furthermore, what they are saying to me isn't considered rude in our religion-centric society, but mine is. So why do they get to state their opinion without fear of reprisal, but I can not?

I try my hardest to be civil with religious conversation. But you have no idea how much that requires that I bit my tongue. Religious people don't seem to need to bite their tongue.

[greyl]

23. It can't hurt, can it?

Truth be told, I didn't intend this thread to be about being polite, and I shouldn't have quoted that section of the article in my OP.
Religion has so much more gravity and potentially devastating effects than say, ones favorite genre of music, that I can't really find much fault with anger expressed against it, or a lack of coddling the faithful.
It's just that the mental illness point needed to made I guess.
Take Rev Barry Lynn for a shining example of a religious person with above average pragmatic reasoning skills and relative sanity.

[Dissenting_Prole]

26. What's really offensive...

is when people tell me that they pray that I'll be saved some day.

I tell them that I pray that they will turn gay or lose their legs in an automobile accident. Why not? They're praying for something I don't want. I'll do the same for them.

[greyl]

36. I agree with that.

I think the conditioned belief that humans are born needing to be saved is profoundly harmful and divorced from reality.

edit: inserted "conditioned" ;)

[okasha]

27. The problem is

that this isn't true. There are plenty of believers, of various stripes, who are quite happy to acknowledge that paths other than their own are valid. "Everybody" is not a fundamentalist or literalist.

And by the way, isn't this the forum where we frequently get heated threads about how terrible it is for non-atheists to "tell atheists what they believe?" Yet here we have atheists telling non-atheists what they believe. Oh my, the irony.

[greyl]

28. Nobody said all believers

claim all "paths" other than their own are invalid.

The suggestion is that if an atheist is being berated by a churchman, perhaps the atheist "could reply like this:
* * *
You're an unbeliever, just like me. You doubt many sacred dogmas."

I very seriously doubt that you can find a sane churchman who will say that all of the dogmas listed in the talk are valid.

[okasha]

42. "All believers" isn't included in "everybody?"

How does that work?

I very seriously doubt that you can find a sane churchman who will say that all of the dogmas listed in the talk are valid.

"A sane churchman" would be far to busy pointing out the guy's misunderstandings and misrepresentations, starting with what constitutes a "dogma."

[greyl]

45. You aren't comprehending my statement in its entirety.

My statement: "Nobody said all believers claim all "paths" other than their own are invalid."
was a direct response to your statement: "There are plenty of believers, of various stripes, who are quite happy to acknowledge that paths other than their own are valid."


"A sane churchman" would be far to busy pointing out the guy's misunderstandings and misrepresentations, starting with what constitutes a "dogma."

Ya mean as opposed to misquoting and obfuscating?

[okasha]

51. You're dancing around the question, greyl.

You're saying that "Everybody" somehow excludes a rather large class of people. You're further saying that the truth of statement is related to the person it's addressed to--in this case "churchmen" the speaker wants to persuade--rather than to its adherence to facts.

And to answer your post further down, I not only clicked and read the whole article you linked to but some of the dude's other writings. Either he wouldn't know a dogma if it bit him, or he's relying on a credulous audience that wouldn't. Most of those "21 dogmas" are nothing of the kind. You really should approach your sources with a bit more--uhm, skepticism.

[greyl]

56. To the contrary, you're distracting from my question in #46.

To recap, I said "Nobody said all believers
claim all "paths" other than their own are invalid."

To that you asked "All believers" isn't included in "everybody?"

Your question is clearly asked of the fragment of my subject line rather than the entire statement.
It's a red-herring.

You haven't addressed #46, but I won't lose sleep over it.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Where do you see "atheists telling non-atheists what they believe"?

:shrug:

[okasha]

41. Right here:

Everyone's a skeptic - about other religions.

The OP is telling me what I believe about other religions. It's not only presumptuous, it's false. Kind of like telling atheists that their stance constitutes a religion, y'know?

[Zhade]

44. It's not false at all, unless there is a human being who believes...

...every single religion they've been exposed to is true as each religion describes itself and its inherent beliefs.

That's very different from believing all religions are a valid path to...something. Being, say, a Christian and believing that it's cool to believe in Vishnu or Ra is not the same as being a Christian who BELIEVES IN Vishnu or Ra as actual entities.

Make sense?

[okasha]

52. Make sense? Not particularly.

It's not false at all, unless there is a human being who believes
every single religion they've been exposed to is true as each religion describes itself and its inherent beliefs.

But that's just the point the speaker in the quote above is not starting from. He's presenting religions and their practices as he describes them, not as the actual adherents do. You're shifting the question, here.

That's very different from believing all religions are a valid path to...something.

You're ignoring the difference between accepting a teaching as valid for its practicioners while choosing another as a better fit for oneself and "Being, say, a Christian and believing that it's cool to believe in Vishnu or Ra."

[beam me up scottie]

55. No, you're shifting the question.

You're an unbeliever, just like me. You doubt many sacred dogmas

If you do not believe in every dogma in every religion, you are an unbeliever and a skeptic.

You don't believe in the christian hell and that makes you an unbeliever.

[greyl]

46. Are you saying you aren't skeptical about any of the 21 dogmas listed?

www.holysmoke.org/haught/doubt.html

For now, I'll presume you didn't read the link, and that you're just rushing to judgement based on what I quoted in the OP.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Wrong.

Saying one is skeptical is not defining their beliefs.

Do you believe every religious belief?

How about these?:

--- Millions of Hindus pray over statues of Shiva's penis. Do you think there's an invisible Shiva who wants his penis prayed over -- or are you a skeptic?

--- Members of the Heaven's Gate commune said they could "shed their containers" (their bodies) and be transported to a UFO behind the Hale-Bopp Comet. Do you think they're now on that UFO -- or are you a skeptic?

--- Scientologists say each human has a soul which is a "Thetan" that came from another planet. Do you believe their doctrine -- or doubt it?

--- In China in the 1850s, a Christian convert said God appeared to him, told him he was Jesus' younger brother, and commanded him to "destroy demons." He raised an army of believers who waged the Taiping Rebellion that killed 20 million people. Do you think he was Christ's brother -- or do you doubt it?

You're not a christian and you've stated more than once in this forum that you reject christian dogma, therefore you ARE skeptical about some religious beliefs.

[okasha]

53. Wrong.

The fact that I don't accept Christian beliefs for myself does not mean I reject them as inappropriate for other people--just as I don't accept atheism for myself but don't reject it as inapprpriate for other people.

Your second and third examples, by the way, are more science fiction than they are religion, and the last does not involve any type of Christian dogma. I do have to say it puzzles me why some people classify UFO's as "religious" phenomena.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Oh please. You've rejected christian dogma in this forum and others:

I don't deny that the idea of hell is presented in the Bible; it is. But not being a Christian, Jew or Muslim, I don't believe in its existence.

And the fact that you ARE rejecting christian beliefs for yourself is an example of your skepticism.

If you weren't skeptical, you would believe in Hell.

You just provided another example of your skepticism in this thread.

Scientology is a religion and your belief that it is about "UFO's" and not "religious" phenomena betrays your skepticism.



Stop playing word games, okasha, you do not believe every single dogma/belief in every single religion, therefore the op is NOT telling you what you believe.

[okasha]

61. And here you go again,

trying to tell me what I believe. Just imagine the dudgeon and drag-out if I were trying to define atheism for you. My goodness.

I hate to break it to you, but there are many Christians, Jews and Muslims who don't believe in Hell as a place of eternal punishment, either. That doesn't make them "skeptics" or something other than Christians, Jews and Muslims. (Christians have doubted the existence of Hell at least since the time of Irenaeus.) It doesn't make a pagan a "skeptic," either.

Part of the problem with this thread, including the OP, is that many participants seem to have no idea that there's a difference between a religion and a dogma or between a dogma and a practice. Some, including the chap quoted by the OP, seem to have at best a very shaky idea what dogma is. Go look it up.

Scientology is a religion and your belief that it is about "UFO's" and not "religious" phenomena betrays your skepticism.

Now, this at least comes close to being true. I should have noted that Scientology is bad science fiction combined with bad psychology. Does it call itself a religion? Yes--that's how it got a 501(c)3. Is it a religion? Can you have a cult without cultus? Where, precisely, is the Scientological content that fits the usual definition of a religion?

Stop playing word games, okasha,

But the OP and most of this thread are part of a word game. Most of R/T is about word games. Surely you don't think this forum is really about discussion, do you? :rofl:

[rd_kent]

63. BUSTED! Now I see what youre doing!

You are being obtuse for the sake of upping your post count. Do you have a deadline set for 1000 yet? Is there a party planned?

[beam me up scottie]

65. Nice try, but you're the one who said the words, okasha: "I DON'T BELIEVE"

Your claim that you're not a christian and that you don't believe in the christian hell make you a skeptic and an unbeliever.

And while your failure to recognize the religious beliefs of scientologists and dismissal of scientology as an established religion illustrate your skepticism and lack of belief, your mockery of it and your attempt to redefine what scientologists believe illustrate your hypocrisy.

I hate to break it to you, but there are many Christians, Jews and Muslims who don't believe in Hell as a place of eternal punishment, either. That doesn't make them "skeptics" or something other than Christians, Jews and Muslims. (Christians have doubted the existence of Hell at least since the time of Irenaeus.) It doesn't make a pagan a "skeptic," either.

Are you really so desperate to be right that you need to misrepresent my posts, okasha?
Show me where I said that not believing in hell makes christians, jews and muslims "something other than Christians, Jews and Muslims"

Part of the problem with this thread, including the OP, is that many participants seem to have no idea that there's a difference between a religion and a dogma or between a dogma and a practice. Some, including the chap quoted by the OP, seem to have at best a very shaky idea what dogma is. Go look it up.

I looked up the definition of dogma, and I'll post it for you since you're obviously struggling with it.

dog·ma (dôg'mə, dŏg' -)
n., pl. -mas or -ma·ta (-mə-tə ).

* A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

* An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See synonyms at doctrine.

* A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

You can attempt to redefine the word if you think it supports your claim that the op is telling you what you believe, but don't expect everyone else to use your narrow definition.

Now, this at least comes close to being true. I should have noted that Scientology is bad science fiction combined with bad psychology. Does it call itself a religion? Yes--that's how it got a 501(c)3. Is it a religion? Can you have a cult without cultus? Where, precisely, is the Scientological content that fits the usual definition of a religion?

First, let's define the word "religion" so that you can't move the goalposts again:

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.

* Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

* A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

* The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

* A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

* A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Okay, now let's look at scientology, from religioustolerance.org:

The keynote of the Scientology religion is that it deals with the human spirit and its salvation and rehabilitation. It teaches that an individual is a spirit: not a body, not a brain, not a fortuitous random conglomeration of genes and chemicals. It is this single recognition of the nature of an individual that forms the foundation of the Scientology religion. Throughout the ages, man has traditionally viewed himself as a spiritual being. It has only been within the last century that the materialistic idea that man is merely another animal similar to a monkey or rat has taken hold. Scientology teaches that this idea is patently false, unworkable, and acts as a barrier to a personal understanding of life. An individual little suspects how much untapped potential he or she has to create his or her own life.

Scientology directly addresses an individual's spiritual nature with answers to the age old questions of Who am I? What do I consist of? Where do I come from? Where am I going? This spiritual enlightenment leads to personal understanding of oneself and others.

Once you prove that scientology is not a religion, I'll stop pointing out the fact that you're a hypocrite and we can discuss whether or not your unbelief in it qualifies as an unbelief in a religion.

But for now, take a good long look:

But the OP and most of this thread are part of a word game. Most of R/T is about word games. Surely you don't think this forum is really about discussion, do you?

Yes, this forum is for discussion, and word games may be a part of the discussion, but I feel sorry for you if you don't see it that way.

Maybe if you weren't so busy playing word games you'd have more time to participate in discussions.

[okasha]

74. So--atheism is a religion

Are you really so desperate to be right that you need to misrepresent my posts, okasha?
Show me where I said that not believing in hell makes christians, jews and muslims "something other than Christians, Jews and Muslims"

Nobody's misrepresenting your post, BMUS. The "discussion," such as it is, is about dogma--a term you're flinging around rather loosely. I was merely using the dogma of the existence of Hell to point out that rejection of a given dogma does not mean rejection of the entire religion, even by believers. This is a point that is evidently lost on the OP and his guru, as well as on you, since all three of you fail to differentiate among religion, dogma and pious practice.

First, let's define the word "religion" so that you can't move the goalposts again:


re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.

* Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

* A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

* The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

* A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

* A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

So, according to your last definition, you acknowledge that atheism is a religion? You sure you don't want to move the goalposts just a little?

Appeals to the Gospel of Saint Merriam-Webster aside, there are three features that characterize religions. They are a deity or deities; a creed; and a cultus, or form of worship. Scientology has none of these elements. Zilch. Zero. Zip. According to their website, they accept members of all faiths, which itself acknowledges plainly that Scientology isn't a faith. In fact, it was originally founded as a self-help group. The incorporation as a "religious organization" came later, apparently when it occurred to ol' L. Ron that he could then charge money for the "self-help" sessions.

Once you prove that scientology is not a religion, I'll stop pointing out the fact that you're a hypocrite and we can discuss whether or not your unbelief in it qualifies as an unbelief in a religion

Boring, boring. Can't you at least try to come up with a new insult or two? Anyone who disagrees with you is a "hypocrite." Having consulted the oracular lawn sprinkler, I predict that your next jibe will be "Are you sure you're a liberal/Democrat?"

[beam me up scottie]

76. Let's play a game, kiddies, gather 'round.

Okay, boys and girls, we have a yes or no question for you today, please no talking while reading the information and casting your vote.

Let's pretend Person A posts the following statement about a recognized religion whose followers believe just as devoutly in the tenets of their religion as christians, muslims, jews, native americans, etc, do:

I should have noted that (insert name of religion here) is bad science fiction combined with bad psychology

Now let's pretend this was Person A's reply to another poster, person B, after he said that he has no desire to "convert" native people:

In other words, you want us to remain insane, delusional, invested in fairy tales, childishly believing in beings of the same level of reality as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, imagining that we have conversations on a daily basis with the Heap Big Thimgamajig(s) Up In the Sky. You want us to go right on deceiving ourselves that spiritual experiences encountered in ceremony are illusions or brain farts, born of a lack of mental fortitude and an unwillingness to live in reality. Because here's the deal, BC: Native Americans are theists. Some of us even believe in more than one deity. Some of us communicate with animal spirits. We call rocks and trees people. That means, according to you and your buddies, that we're all bugfuck crazy. Gee, thanks. With friends like that, who needs Bunnynpants and his BIA?

But oh, you never said that! Of course you didn't. If you insulted traditional Native American believers the way you do Christians you'd be nailed for racism on the spot. Your cred as a good liberal depends on a double standard here.

Would that make person A a hypocrite?

Take your time, now, we want you to really think about the question.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Excellent! Thank you for playing! But before you collect your prize,

for those of you who answered correctly, we have a bonus round!

Pretend person A suggests that another poster, Person C, will question his/her standing as a liberal/Democrat:

Having consulted the oracular lawn sprinkler, I predict that your next jibe will be "Are you sure you're a liberal/Democrat?"

Now pretend that Person C did no such thing, however, Person A did question whether or not another poster was liberal:

Your cred as a good liberal depends on a double standard here

In this scenario, is Person A a hypocrite?

[beam me up scottie]

78. We're discussing hypocrisy and the bashing of other religions, not atheism

If you need to get even, feel free to start another thread where you can tell atheists what they believe.

I'd hate to deprive you of the opportunity to do to others what you're accusing the op of doing to you.

Nobody's misrepresenting your post, BMUS. The "discussion," such as it is, is about dogma--a term you're flinging around rather loosely. I was merely using the dogma of the existence of Hell to point out that rejection of a given dogma does not mean rejection of the entire religion, even by believers. This is a point that is evidently lost on the OP and his guru, as well as on you, since all three of you fail to differentiate among religion, dogma and pious practice.

Nice try, okasha, but you're not going to spin this one.


"I was merely using the dogma of the existence of Hell to point out that rejection of a given dogma does not mean rejection of the entire religion"

Who said that the rejection of a given dogma means rejection of the entire religion?

So, according to your last definition, you acknowledge that atheism is a religion? You sure you don't want to move the goalposts just a little?

Again, the subjects at hand are dogma, belief and hypocrisy, I hate to disappoint you, but you can always redefine my atheism another time.

Appeals to the Gospel of Saint Merriam-Webster aside, there are three features that characterize religions. They are a deity or deities; a creed; and a cultus, or form of worship. Scientology has none of these elements. Zilch. Zero. Zip. According to their website, they accept members of all faiths, which itself acknowledges plainly that Scientology isn't a faith. In fact, it was originally founded as a self-help group. The incorporation as a "religious organization" came later, apparently when it occurred to ol' L. Ron that he could then charge money for the "self-help" sessions.

When did the rest of the world give you permission to redefine religion?

Let's stick with the accepted definition this time, you can make stuff up in your future thread where you will attempt to redefine atheism.

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.

* Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

* A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

* The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

* A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

* A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

From Scientology's website, at the very top of the page:

Scientology is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life. The Scientology religion comprises a body of knowledge extending from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these:

Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability.

Scientology is recognized as a religion and it fits the accepted definition of one.

Your disbelief in their religion is duly noted, however, since it DOES prove that you are skeptical of/disbelieve in other religions and/or their dogma-(which was, I believe, what started this discussion.)

Boring, boring. Can't you at least try to come up with a new insult or two? Anyone who disagrees with you is a "hypocrite." Having consulted the oracular lawn sprinkler, I predict that your next jibe will be "Are you sure you're a liberal/Democrat?"

Good grief, okasha.

Being a sore loser is really bad form.

And inferring that I was insulting you is just more of your spin.

Refute the definitions, complain that it's not fair, kick and scream, whatever makes you feel better, but it will change nothing.

You started this by accusing the op of intolerance.

It's pretty obvious who the intolerant one is, okasha.

But since you missed it the first time around:

[greyl]

82. It might not be hypocrisy as you are using the term.

It may be a case of losing track of previous posts that were nothing more than an excersise in bullshitting.

[Zhade]

90. Except that atheism isn't a cause, principle, or activity.

It is simply the absence of belief in gods.

Thus, your argument breaks down, like your arguments above likewise fail.

[greyl]

68. "Surely you don't think this forum is really about discussion, do you?"

There you have it.

[rd_kent]

62. Your making his point for him!

What may sound crazy to you (UFO's as religious) ARE serious to those who believe it. I think the OP was trying to point out that every single one of us is classified as an unbeliever since no on BELIEVES all religions to be true, only thier own.

[beam me up scottie]

66. Thank you for noticing the hypocrisy.

Many believers here seem to think it's perfectly fine for them to bash other religions while at the same time complaining that atheists are disrespectful of their religious beliefs.

Just ask trotsky, he's seen it more often than I have.

Hypocrite Smilie:

[NMMNG]

69. But it's not disrespectful when *they* do it

Only when we do. :sarcasm:

[beam me up scottie]

70. Yep: "christianity is bad science fiction combined with bad psychology"

Actually, okasha's opinion is "Scientology is bad science fiction combined with bad psychology".

But imagine for a moment her reaction (and that of others) if one of us had posted the former.

[NMMNG]

71. Indeed

It seems it is appropriate to bash any religion (or lack of religion) except Christianity on this forum.

[okasha]

72. "christianity is bad science fiction combined with bad psychology"

Can't seem to find the original of this, so I'll point out here that science fiction requires, uh, science. The Gospels would never get into Analog.

[NMMNG]

73. Well,

When one thinks about it a guy who sits up above and manipulates goings-on sounds sort of like science-fiction. I saw it in a Twillight Zone episode as a matter of fact. ;-)

[beam me up scottie]

80. "science fiction requires, uh, science"

science fiction
n.

A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

I can't wait for you to prove that the bible doesn't qualify as science fiction.

:rofl:

[greyl]

81. Gee, sounds like she's skeptical of another religion.

:thumbsup:
Not holding my breath for an admission.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Well, she hasn't tried to redefine skepticism yet.

We may be here a while.

I'll order Chinese, they deliver.

[greyl]

84. I have some Indian leftovers to take care of.

I love those fried cottage cheese balls.

[beam me up scottie]

85. mmmmmmmmmmm,

no dairy for me, though.
Trying to go vegan a little at a time.

Ha!
As if just being a vegetarian isn't exotic enough in BBQ Kountry.

Talk about trying to convert others, these people see vegetarianism as a challenge, it's freakin scary how hard they come after you.

I wouldn't put it past my neighbor to tie me to a tree and force feed me chicken carcasses.

[greyl]

87. Maybe someone else is eating crow.

Damn carnivore! ;)

[charlie]

75. Yeah

One of my faves is a one-note poster (hint: he thinks he's Rosa Parks) who regularly starts threads wailing about denigration and marginalization of Christians. But he sticks up for a pastor who put out a sign saying the Koran should be flushed. Accuses the UCC of "tolerance of sin solely to pull people in" for their gay inclusion. And a mere call to a DC religious rights rally that included Wiccans, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc, managed to cause a trifecta of insult -- him, his faith, and his God -- working him into a fine froth that ended with the old "no wonder the religious right thinks the left is Godless" chestnut. Hy. Po. Crite.

[beam me up scottie]

79. New graphic:

All of the threads bashing scientology are locked for a reason.

But what that reason is apparently escapes certain believers.

[charlie]

86. LOL!

I've gotta admit, those pics gave me a HUH? moment. Too clever for me.

My sis once sent me a birthday card with rows of hippos, birds, and sheep, with a lone deer in their midst. Didn't make sense until you sang it:

Hippo birdie, two ewes.
Hippo birdie, two ewes...etc

[Laotra]

60. I'm not sceptic

I'm a scepticist, a là Socrates, Pyrrhon, Nagarjuna etc. ;)

-hen oida hoti ouden oida.

[SPKrazy]

95. Okay I Agree With You-I'm A Skeptic About Many Things

I don't follow dogma well (not even dogma of my own professed religion)

now, the inevitable "so what"?

Are you just saying that I'm no different than you?

I agree. We all are mere humans whether we have spiritual beliefs or not.