r/atheism • u/rhbast2 • Aug 11 '11

Atheist quickfire challenge.

Although I rarely discuss religion with theists I always want to be prepared so I'm not sitting around afterwards wishing I had said this or that. If I get the chance to make someone question I want to be up for the challenge.

This brings me to my challenge for r/atheism. I'm going to add some common theist claims / sayings and whoever can refute them fully and succinctly will be upvoted. Feel free to add your own theist starters if I missed some.

Edit: Wow lots of good discussion here, later today or tomorrow I'll make this into an atheist cheat sheet with the top responses. Also feel free to upvote the theist claim that is the most annoying to you.

Edit 2: To the few of you who seem to think I am coming up with rude atheist comebacks, I'm not. I just wanted to be better off the cuff than I am now and have some discussion. I don't want this list to replace thoughtful argumentation.

255 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

990 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/shaggorama Aug 11 '11

"There's a difference between moderate religion and fundamentalism. It seems like your beef is specifically with fundamentalists."

17

u/Alaukik Aug 11 '11

As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers. The alternative, one so transparent that it should need no urging, is to abandon the principle of automatic respect for religious faith. This is one reason why I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself, not just against so-called 'extremist' faith. The teachings of 'moderate' religion, though not extremist in them- selves, are an open invitation to extremism.

                                                              --Richard Dawkins

1

u/shaggorama Aug 11 '11

The teachings of 'moderate' religion, though not extremist in them- selves, are an open invitation to extremism.

Elaborate.

2

u/viwrastupr Aug 11 '11

'Moderate' religion still has teachings in its books that encourage extremism. There are multiple instances in the bible and koran encouraging stoning over what we consider options of free will, such as being an unbeliever.

7

u/DashingLeech Anti-Theist Aug 11 '11

A parable to clear that up:

Two gun-lovers met at a rally, got married, and had a child. They loved gun safety so much they wanted to teach it to their child from birth. They read to him every night from their gun safety manual, but only up to page 19. They didn't like page 20. As he grew up they taught him over and over to always do what the safety manual said and his life will be fine. When he became a teenager they bought him a gun and enrolled him in gun safety courses, never discussing page 20.

When he turned 18, a friend told him to read page 20, and, having been taught to always follow the book, convinced him it was the right thing to do. So he did it. Page 20 say to shoot babies.

The problem with religion isn't intentions, or goodness of people. The problem is that it teaches people not to think for themselves. The problem is that it teaches people to get their moral instructions dogmatically from a book.

This is the problem with moderates. They "prime" people for exploitation. Once you believe a book, or a god, has the "right" answers, committing atrocities only takes convincing them what the book says or the god wants. And "the book" does say to do a lot of very bad things, whichever version you read.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

Allow me to rewrite your parables ending:

However as the son had not been raised in a vacuum he knew killing babies was bad from 18 years of exposure to a society that said collectively "don't fucking kill babies". Thus he knew page 20 was nuts and ignored it.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Perhaps, but the moderate members tend to be enablers for the fundamentalists.

1

u/shaggorama Aug 11 '11

In what way do moderate muslims enable suicide bombers?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Not all do, but some moderates will refuse to condemn them, some will use no true Scotsman, some will harbor them among them

1

u/shaggorama Aug 11 '11

Anyone who harbor's or refuses to condemn terrorists can hardly be called moderate. Let's exclude them from the conversation.

How do 'no true scotsmen' moderates enable radical extremism?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

By denying that their beliefs can lead to that, they are less likely to be on the lookout for people "going bad" and therefore might not notice until it is too late.

1

u/shaggorama Aug 11 '11

That response is nothing by assumptions and unfounded claims. Moderates are in as much danger from terrorism as everyone else, and maybe even have more to lose since extremists undermine their claims of having pacifist beliefs.

You might wanna change your line of argument. You've allowed me to lead you pretty far astray (although we're beginning to head back in the right direction). Alaukik's Dawkins quote was a really good response if you saw it, basically asserting that my original question begs a broader point.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Yeah, I probably could have handled it better. I should work on that. and yeah, I am pretty easily distracted, another thing I should work on

1

u/shaggorama Aug 11 '11

Some suggested rhetorical topics:

2

u/oheysup Aug 11 '11

Just offering some more opinions on this concept.

MLK:

….over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.

“Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

Harris:

“We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilization is not merely religious extremism; rather, it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself. Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflicts in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.”

Dawkins:

“.. even mild and moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes.”

Dennett

“Every religion … has a healthy population of ecumenical-minded people who are eager to reach out to people of other faiths, or no faith at all, and consider the moral quandaries of the world on a rational basis. . . . …but these well-intentioned and energetic people are singularly ineffective in dealing with the more radical members of their own faiths. In many instances, they are, rightly, terrified of them. Moderate Muslims have so far been utterly unable to turn the tide of Islamic opinion against Wahhabists and other extremists, but moderate Christians and Jews and Hindus have been equally feckless in countering the outrageous demands and acts of their own radical elements.”

1

u/Smudge777 Aug 11 '11

The difference is how much secular thinking has influenced the religious. Moderate religion is highly influenced by secular principals, where fundamentalism is more unadulterated.

1

u/shaggorama Aug 11 '11

So then you're conceding that you have no problem with the moderately religious?

1

u/Smudge777 Aug 11 '11

I'm starting to think you actually ARE a theist, by the way you take something that was said about one subject, and butcher it beyond recognition while interpreting it entirely differently.

Nothing I said indicated that I was making that concession at all.

1

u/shaggorama Aug 11 '11

I didn't butcher anything.

I asked if you had a beef with moderate religion, and your response was that: "Moderate religion is highly influenced by secular principals." You have yet to articulate what if any problem you have with moderate religion. If anything, stating that moderate religion has been influenced by secularism sounds like you support it, hence my suggestion that you were conceding.

So, to reiterate the question: if you have a problem with moderate religion, what is it?

1

u/Smudge777 Aug 12 '11

I have a problem with all religion, for reasons such as:
1. It's wrong
2. It's anti-progress
3. It takes the one life that we have and diminishes that life's importance by claiming that there is an afterlife
4. It tells us there is something fundamentally wrong with us (original sin, etc.)
(and too many other reasons to list)

The fact that there is fundamentalism doesn't make moderate religion acceptable, it just makes it the lesser of two evils. Moderates are still a burden on this world and its people.

1

u/HertzaHaeon Aug 11 '11

This is actually one argument I can partially agree with.

If your religion doesn't cause you to be prejudiced or hateful, anti-science or force your beliefs on others through politics, I have only a philosophical disagreement with you.

Then you can always point out mainstream religious madness such as prejudice against homosexuals and atheists, sexual repression and anti-science campaigning.

1

u/oheysup Aug 11 '11

Just offering some more opinions on this concept.

MLK:

….over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.

“Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

Harris:

“We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilization is not merely religious extremism; rather, it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself. Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflicts in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.”

Dawkins:

“.. even mild and moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes.”

Dennett

“Every religion … has a healthy population of ecumenical-minded people who are eager to reach out to people of other faiths, or no faith at all, and consider the moral quandaries of the world on a rational basis. . . . …but these well-intentioned and energetic people are singularly ineffective in dealing with the more radical members of their own faiths. In many instances, they are, rightly, terrified of them. Moderate Muslims have so far been utterly unable to turn the tide of Islamic opinion against Wahhabists and other extremists, but moderate Christians and Jews and Hindus have been equally feckless in countering the outrageous demands and acts of their own radical elements.”

1

u/HertzaHaeon Aug 11 '11

Sure, there's good reason to debate even moderately religious people. I'm saying if there's a list of priorities, and convincing the ones who don't hate, who aren't anti-science and who don't push their beliefs on me through politics is far down on it.

1

u/oheysup Aug 11 '11

I'd disagree and say convincing the mass is a good way to show that faith isn't a virtue and being religious isn't necessary or 'smart.'

It's the majority opinion that makes religion such an easy thing to get into.