Which part of the God Delusion did you find most offensive? (beliefs, experience)

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by lilithu

I do think that you recognize the diverse range. Otherwise, we would not get along.

I was talking about Dawkins. I don't "get along" with Dawkins.

I am perplexed that you are supporting him, and am arguing with you as a result of it, but that is not going to change my impression of you formed from many more conversations than just this one.

I only ask because I think that if you keep this in mind about me, then my other comments here take on a completely different context. For instance, when I say that the Abrahamic religions promote belief without thinking, take it not as me saying that every adherent of those religions believes without ever having thought about it. Instead take it as what it was meant to say, that the religion promotes that sort of thing at its core, but there are many ways of going about it that differ from that core.

I don't always support Dawkins. He has his flaws, and I think in some ways he is too radical, and doesn't take enough into account. On the other hand, I think a lot of his ideas get thrown out by theists simply because of these flaws, and not because of any inherent problems with the reasoning of the ideas themselves. I would take a much different approach if I was him, but he still makes some good, valid points, which I think get lost among his other less-informed comments.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by mball1297

I only ask because I think that if you keep this in mind about me, then my other comments here take on a completely different context. For instance, when I say that the Abrahamic religions promote belief without thinking, take it not as me saying that every adherent of those religions believes without ever having thought about it. Instead take it as what it was meant to say, that the religion promotes that sort of thing at its core, but there are many ways of going about it that differ from that core.

I'm not taking it as you saying that every adherent believes without thinking. I know you don't think that. I am disagreeing with your basic premise, that religion promotes unthinking at its core.

And I certainly, CERTAINLY disagree with the assertion that religion is the cause of 9/11.

[misanthropic_clown]

The problem we find here is one of the unwillingness to apply the label 'religion' to extremism. In all fairness, that label can be applied, so I think one needs to speak in terms of moderate and extremist religion. Even 'proper religion X' and 'twisted religion X' There is no real allowance in the term religion itself to differentiate between the two.

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

Originally Posted by lilithu

And I certainly, CERTAINLY disagree with the assertion that religion is the cause of 9/11.

Perhaps this problem is more to do with the way we are using language. Nobody can argue that the actual people who flew the planes weren't doing it for a religious reasons. However, these people were influenced by leaders who simply USE religion to manipulate people into doing things that help their cause. In a sense, religion was the motive for the individuals who flew the planes, but the motives for the people influencing them were more historical, sociological and economical. Terrorism isn't religious, but some leaders use religion to motivate people to do bad things.

- David

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Hexaqua_David(II)

Perhaps this problem is more to do with the way we are using language. Nobody can argue that the actual people who flew the planes weren't doing it for a religious reasons.

I agree, but Mother Teresa spent her life tending to the poor for religious reasons. To say that their "religious reasons" is equal to religion is like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer is equal to Americans or whites or males... I truly do not understand how people can not see this.

Originally Posted by Hexaqua_David(II)

However, these people were influenced by leaders who simply USE religion to manipulate people into doing things that help their cause. In a sense, religion was the motive for the individuals who flew the planes, but the motives for the people influencing them were more historical, sociological and economical. Terrorism isn't religious, but some leaders use religion to motivate people to do bad things.

- David

Pretty much agree.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

The problem we find here is one of the unwillingness to apply the label 'religion' to extremism. In all fairness, that label can be applied, so I think one needs to speak in terms of moderate and extremist religion. Even 'proper religion X' and 'twisted religion X' There is no real allowance in the term religion itself to differentiate between the two.

But how is extremist religion different from extremist nationalism or extremist ideology? The problem is extremism.

edit:
Gah! I've been on these forums too long, I've confused myself here. Nix the last sentence. The problem is, as I've been saying over and over, is creating an "Other" and viewing the world as "us versus them."

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

Originally Posted by lilithu

I agree, but Mother Teresa spent her life tending to the poor for religious reasons. To say that their "religious reasons" is equal to religion is like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer is equal to Americans or whites or males... I truly do not understand how people can not see this.

That was pretty much the point I was trying to make. =)

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by lilithu

But how is extremist religion different from extremist nationalism or extremist ideology? The problem is extremism.

True, but something taken to the extreme is still rooted in the same something, and thus to exclude its title is not particularly proper. To prefix it is the only suitable course of action.