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

[Jayhawker Soule]

What necessary quality of religion caused 9/11?

[logician]

Many theists find any intelligent argument against their beliefs to be offensive, our society has been set up almost not to question a person's religiius beliefs as they are some kind of sacred no-man's land.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Address what? If you refer to a specific action, then I can address it.

Well, some of the things I mentioned that you might have responded to could have been:

1) that the way the Abrahamic religions divide the world in the Elect and the Damned and similar categories is flawed and dangerous,

2) that gathering believers in a big old prayer group does nothing to dispel the kind of superstitious thinking that allows fanatics to think god will reward them for flying a jet into a skyscraper,

3) the fact that "liberal" religion is only liberal in comparison to "conservative" religion; that there is no large Christian denomination in which women and equal to men and homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals; that even the Unitarian Universalist Association manages to accommodate itself an organization as rank and bigoted as the Boy Scouts of America,

4) that Mother Teresa, as an example of the good done by religion, is not very impressive,

and anything else you care to respond to.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

1) that the way the Abrahamic religions divide the world in the Elect and the Damned and similar categories is flawed and dangerous,

Gross overgeneralization.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

2) that gathering believers in a big old prayer group does nothing to dispel the kind of superstitious thinking that allows fanatics to think god will reward them for flying a jet into a skyscraper,

The purpose of the INTERFAITH prayer group was to encourage and model for people not to give in to hate in response to the attack. Obviously, many people didn't listen.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

3) the fact that "liberal" religion is only liberal in comparison to "conservative" religion; that there is no large Christian denomination in which women and equal to men and homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals; that even the Unitarian Universalist Association manages to accommodate itself an organization as rank and bigoted as the Boy Scouts of America,

I can't think of any liberal religion/denomination where women aren't at least as equal to men as they are in secular organizations, and for many they are a great deal more equal. The same with BGLT. The UUA made a decision to stay engaged in conversation with the boyscouts. There are BGLT folk who have their kids in the Scouts. Are you going to condemn them for it too? HRC, and organization supposedly dedicated to BGLT rights, decided to throw transgender folk under a bus with the hate crimes bill. The UUA, which is not exclusively BGLT, held fast to our religious values and demanded inclusive protection.

It's easy to criticize imperfection. I don't see secular groups acting any better. In fact, what I see in liberal secular organizations is a greater propensity to fall into the "us versus them" mentality, whereas UUs and other religious liberals try to hold onto the principle of "love your enemy."

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

4) that Mother Teresa, as an example of the good done by religion, is not very impressive,

Well that's your opinion. I know she wasn't perfect but unless you are willing to do what she did, then your criticisms are have about as much weight as dandruff. And No, I do not think that Christopher Hitchens is an objective judge of the woman.

Would you care to take shots at Dr. King and Desmond Tutu too?

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Gross overgeneralization.

Really? Which of the Abrahamic faiths doesn't do it?

Originally Posted by lilithu

I can't think of any liberal religion/denomination where women aren't at least as equal to men as they are in secular organizations, and for many they are a great deal more equal. The same with BGLT.

The two largest Christian churches in the world prohibit the ordination of women, as do many others, including the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. There is no large Christian denomination, liberal or otherwise, where LGBT people are equal to cisgendered heterosexuals. Liberal Christians are to be commended for questioning the status quo, but I see no reason to commend them for their decision to continue their membership in these discriminatory organizations. The UUA is, of course, much better in this respect than the Christian churches.

Originally Posted by lilithu

The UUA made a decision to stay engaged in conversation with the boyscouts.

More than that, they made a decision to continue participating in the Boy Scouts.

Originally Posted by lilithu

There are BGLT folk who have their kids in the Scouts. Are you going to condemn them for it too?

I don't think morality is different for gay people than for straight people.

Originally Posted by lilithu

HRC, and organization supposedly dedicated to BGLT rights, decided to throw transgender folk under a bus with the hate crimes bill. The UUA, which is not exclusively BGLT, held fast to our religious values and demanded inclusive protection.

That's good. Even religious people do things right sometimes -- especially UUs.

Originally Posted by lilithu

It's easy to criticize imperfection.

I'm not criticizing imperfection. I'm criticizing (among other things) bigotry and exclusion, and the fact that religious people not only condone these things, but perpetuate them in their own private organizations.

Originally Posted by lilithu

I don't see secular groups acting any better. In fact, what I see in liberal secular organizations is a greater propensity to fall into the "us versus them" mentality, whereas UUs and other religious liberals try to hold onto the principle of "love your enemy."

Then why don't you love Richard Dawkins? Why do you put so much energy into dialogue with the bigots in the Boy Scouts of America, and so little into dialogue with people who don't like religion? It seems speaking ill of religion is a much worse offense than treating people badly.

Originally Posted by lilithu

Well that's your opinion. I know she wasn't perfect but unless you are willing to do what she did, then your criticisms are have about as much weight as dandruff.

I can only criticize her actions if I'm willing to perform the very actions I criticize?

Originally Posted by lilithu

And No, I do not think that Christopher Hitchens is an objective judge of the woman.

Christopher Hitchens is not an objective judge of anything.

Originally Posted by lilithu

Would you care to take shots at Dr. King and Desmond Tutu too?

No, there are some good Christians. It's easy to recognize them; they're the ones enraging the other Christians.

[kai]

the point is ,its easy to criticize the god delusion its out there go for it, not the same with holy scripture we have been programed to give it respect to the extreme of martyrdom. thats what Dawkins and co are all about stripping away the feeling of blasphemy to question. its still not time for mankind to attempt this when half of it is still living with a medieval mindset. the cry of" burn him "is still there. and so is martyrdom

[Joe Stocks]

I am not sure if this was already said, but I found, not so much offensive, as absurd when he said that raising your child to be a member of a particular religion was a form of child abuse.

[kai]

Originally Posted by Joe Stocks

I am not sure if this was already said, but I found, not so much offensive, as absurd when he said that raising your child to be a member of a particular religion was a form of child abuse.

there is just such a thread on that somewhere.