Poll: Whaddya reckon about God's existence?

[piscator]

IOW, Seth knew it was bullshit all along. And we have no right to blame religion for the Spanish Inquisition.

[JimC]

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Animavore]

... because I have more common sense, compassion, humanity, understanding, tolerance and intelligence than those who consistently do so.

We have a saying in Ireland, "Self praise is no praise."

I notice you didn't include 'modesty' in your list.

[klr]

... because I have more common sense, compassion, humanity, understanding, tolerance and intelligence than those who consistently do so.

We have a saying in Ireland, "Self praise is no praise."

I notice you didn't include 'modesty' in your list.

We say a lot of things.

But yes, we do say that one. Usually with eyes rolled.

[JimC]

Praise Seth and pass the ammunition!

[klr]

Praise Seth and pass the ammunition!

Or as true Catholics like to call it, the communion wafers.

[Seth]

IOW, Seth knew it was bullshit all along. And we have no right to blame religion for the Spanish Inquisition.

No, you have a right to believe whatever you want. However you have no moral or rational argument in blaming "religion" for anything because that's just an iteration of the fallacy of composition.

It's bigotry no different from racist presumptions that all blacks are thugs and criminals because some of them are.That you can't understand that speaks to your abilities to reason.

[pErvinalia]

Religious apologists, particularly those of the Christian variety, are big fans of what I have dubbed, the atheist atrocities fallacy. Christians commonly employ this fallacy to shield their egos from the harsh reality of the brutality of their own religion, by utilizing a most absurd form of the tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy, mingled with numerous other logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies. Despite the fact that the atheist atrocities fallacy has already been thoroughly exposed by Hitchens and other great thinkers, it continues to circulate amongst the desperate believers of a religion in its death throes. Should an atheist present a believer with the crimes committed by the Holy See of the Inquisition(s), the Crusaders and other faith-wielding misanthropes, they will often hear the reply; “Well, what about Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler? They were atheists, and they killed millions!”

Given the obstinate nature of religious faith and the wilful ignorance it cultivates in the mind of the believer, I am quite certain that this article will not be the final nail in this rancid and rotting coffin. Having said this, I do hope it will contribute to the arsenal required by those who value reason, facts and evidence, in their struggle against the fallacies perpetually flaunted by those who do not value the truth above their own egocentric delusions, delusions inspired by an unquenchable thirst for security, no matter how frighteningly false its foundation.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/the- ... n-pol-pot/

So, the Wayback Machine fallacy meets the Tu Quoque fallacy...and the winner is....

The Wayback Machine fallacy is the winner and still champeen!

The failure in Dawkins' reasoning, like the failure in your reasoning and the reasoning of every other Atheist is one of compositional fallacy, wherein the reasoning is that parts A, B, and C of object X have characteristics 1, 2, and 3, and therefore all of object X has those same characteristics.

To simplify for the simple minds here, the Wayback Machine fallacy proposes that evil things have been done in ancient (or even contemporary) history in the name of religion and therefore religion as a concept is inherently evil. The answer to that fallacy is of course to point out via the Tu Quoque fallacy that if one is going to commit a fallacy of composition by waving ancient acts about as justification for maligning the whole of religion, it's just exactly as correct to apply the same chain of reasoning to Atheists by pointing out that atheism may be likewise maligned by use of the Wayback Machine fallacy.

What Big Brain Dawkins, and you, fail to understand is that the reference to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et. al. is nothing more than a sarcastic and cutting rejoinder to the invocation of the Wayback Machine fallacy and the fallacy of composition committed by dredging up ancient evils committed by persons long dead as a condemnation of those alive today who have no culpability for those long-past acts, who, like Dawkins and you, also revile those long-past evils, and who themselves practice their religious beliefs peaceably and with nothing but the best of intentions for all.

Now your inevitable rejoinder is that modern-day religious zealots commit evils and act less than "Christian" in their condemnations of various social behaviors like homosexuality, adultery, and various other behaviors that they find to be "sinful."

This is certainly true of some religious zealots, but it is absolutely not true of others, which makes Big Brain Dawkins' and your condemnations of religion generally nothing more than mindless, reasonless bigotry and hatred.

Individuals are to be judged on their actions, and their actions alone. Those who commit crimes may be rightfully reviled, but to assign blame to the innocent for ancient acts done in the name of any ideology or belief whatsoever is intellectually and morally bankrupt and beneath contempt. The sins of the fathers cannot be rationally laid at the feet of the children. Only bigoted zealots like radical Muslims and Atheists try to do that as some sort of idiotic argument.

I will gladly join you and Dawkins at reviling the Inquisition, or the Intifada or any other social misbehavior by those of the past, but I decline to smear and tar everyone who happens to profess a religious belief with the same brush because I have more common sense, compassion, humanity, understanding, tolerance and intelligence than those who consistently do so.

If the shoe fits, rEv, wear it.

Within the first few lines you make up yet another fallacy and get the author of the article wrong. No need to read the rest of your fail.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

IOW, Seth knew it was bullshit all along. And we have no right to blame religion for the Spanish Inquisition.

No, you have a right to believe whatever you want. However you have no moral or rational argument in blaming "religion" for anything because that's just an iteration of the fallacy of composition.

It's bigotry no different from racist presumptions that all blacks are thugs and criminals because some of them are.That you can't understand that speaks to your abilities to reason.

Personally, I don't blame religion per se. I blame ideological conviction. And you are very right that communism, nazism, and many other -isms, are as much an ideology as religions. Even libertarianism can be!

The trouble with ideologies comes when one abrogates ones free will to that of the "cause". Once one does that, one can justify any crime, no matter how vile, because it is "for the greater good". It is one thing to agree with an idea in principle. It is very much another to identify with that idea to the point where one ceases to question it, or what one is asked to do for it.

Religion, nationalism, political dogmatism: all can become the cause of great evil if one places them above ones own integrity and devotes oneself to them unquestioningly. And all can be pretty much harmless in the hands of those that recognise that they are mere simplifications and should not be taken too seriously. The trouble is, humans kind of like certainty, so there will ALWAYS be those that take things to their literal (and ridiculous) extremes. Ideologies never fail to throw up fanatics - be they religious, political, or social.



No, my problem with religions is not the horrors that have been committed in their names, it is the simple fact that they are, without exception, complete and utter fictitious wankery - primitive campfire tales and cod-sociology elevated to a status that should never be feasible to anyone that cares to examine them with the slightest degree of skepticism! At least Marxism, libertarianism and feminism have some kind of reasoning behind them. Religions pretty much all come down to a single loony claiming to have spoken to god - fuck that!

[pErvinalia]

IOW, Seth knew it was bullshit all along. And we have no right to blame religion for the Spanish Inquisition.

No, you have a right to believe whatever you want. However you have no moral or rational argument in blaming "religion" for anything because that's just an iteration of the fallacy of composition.

It's bigotry no different from racist presumptions that all blacks are thugs and criminals because some of them are.That you can't understand that speaks to your abilities to reason.

Personally, I don't blame religion per se. I blame ideological conviction. And you are very right that communism, nazism, and many other -isms, are as much an ideology as religions. Even libertarianism can be!

The trouble with ideologies comes when one abrogates ones free will to that of the "cause". Once one does that, one can justify any crime, no matter how vile, because it is "for the greater good". It is one thing to agree with an idea in principle. It is very much another to identify with that idea to the point where one ceases to question it, or what one is asked to do for it.

Religion, nationalism, political dogmatism: all can become the cause of great evil if one places them above ones own integrity and devotes oneself to them unquestioningly. And all can be pretty much harmless in the hands of those that recognise that they are mere simplifications and should not be taken too seriously. The trouble is, humans kind of like certainty, so there will ALWAYS be those that take things to their literal (and ridiculous) extremes. Ideologies never fail to throw up fanatics - be they religious, political, or social.

yep.

[Seth]

Within the first few lines you make up yet another fallacy and get the author of the article wrong. No need to read the rest of your fail.

In other words, you can't rebut so you're evading instead. Typical.

[Seth]

IOW, Seth knew it was bullshit all along. And we have no right to blame religion for the Spanish Inquisition.

No, you have a right to believe whatever you want. However you have no moral or rational argument in blaming "religion" for anything because that's just an iteration of the fallacy of composition.

It's bigotry no different from racist presumptions that all blacks are thugs and criminals because some of them are.That you can't understand that speaks to your abilities to reason.

Personally, I don't blame religion per se. I blame ideological conviction. And you are very right that communism, nazism, and many other -isms, are as much an ideology as religions. Even libertarianism can be!

The trouble with ideologies comes when one abrogates ones free will to that of the "cause". Once one does that, one can justify any crime, no matter how vile, because it is "for the greater good". It is one thing to agree with an idea in principle. It is very much another to identify with that idea to the point where one ceases to question it, or what one is asked to do for it.

Religion, nationalism, political dogmatism: all can become the cause of great evil if one places them above ones own integrity and devotes oneself to them unquestioningly. And all can be pretty much harmless in the hands of those that recognise that they are mere simplifications and should not be taken too seriously. The trouble is, humans kind of like certainty, so there will ALWAYS be those that take things to their literal (and ridiculous) extremes. Ideologies never fail to throw up fanatics - be they religious, political, or social.

I completely agree with the basic argument you make, but point out that it is not inevitable that when one abrogates one's free will to a cause that this will result in rationalizing criminal or immoral acts. After all, one may submit to authority or a cause without destroying the ability to change one's mind and revoke that submission. Nor is it true that abrogating one's free will to a cause is an absolute act. It's not black or white. One can submit to some authority without necessarily abdicating all one's free will.

No, my problem with religions is not the horrors that have been committed in their names, it is the simple fact that they are, without exception, complete and utter fictitious wankery - primitive campfire tales and cod-sociology elevated to a status that should never be feasible to anyone that cares to examine them with the slightest degree of skepticism!

So presumably you have some critically robust scientific evidence that all religions are devoid of truth or social utility, or are you merely asserting this opinion ex recto in the absence of any such falsifiable and verifiable data? I'd love to see your research notes.

At least Marxism, libertarianism and feminism have some kind of reasoning behind them. Religions pretty much all come down to a single loony claiming to have spoken to god - fuck that!

Your unverified and entirely unscientific opinion is noted....

[pErvinalia]

Within the first few lines you make up yet another fallacy and get the author of the article wrong. No need to read the rest of your fail.

In other words, you can't rebut so you're evading instead. Typical.

No, as usual, you can't even get the basics right. Why should anyone waste their time on someone like that?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So presumably you have some critically robust scientific evidence that all religions are devoid of truth or social utility,

I don't believe I said that, did I? I said they were founded upon bullshit: specifically folk-tales and the supposed divine revelation of unverifiable sources.

Any truth contained within religion is unverifiable but, to my mind, doubtful to the point of irrelevance.
Any social utility is debatable and must be weighed against the social damage caused by religion.

or are you merely asserting this opinion ex recto in the absence of any such falsifiable and verifiable data? I'd love to see your research notes.

As I would love to see those from which you gleaned your figures for "deaths through atheism". I appreciate that I may have a long wait...

[Seth]

Within the first few lines you make up yet another fallacy and get the author of the article wrong. No need to read the rest of your fail.

In other words, you can't rebut so you're evading instead. Typical.

No, as usual, you can't even get the basics right. Why should anyone waste their time on someone like that?

Yet another weak-kneed evasion admitting your inability to formulate a cogent and persuasive rational argument.