exick: kid_icarus: I wonder what  thatreparative therapy would look like?

A library card, a Reddit account, and a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

You're going to force the poor kid to listen to Dawkins?  That's just cruel.

As usual the headline is the funniest part then it's downhill from there. In this case it applies to the thread too. Oh snap!

Biological Ali: Somacandra: Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.

Exactly - just like people with PhDs in Falloutology are the only ones qualified to comment on whether or not the Vault Dweller exists.

If the only question you wish to discuss is whether or not religion (or one particular religion) is SCIENTIFICALLY PLAUSIBLE, then yes, Dawkins is as qualified as anyone.

If, however, you wish to discuss the question as to whether or not religion HARMS SOCIETY, then you had better believe a knowledge of topics such as history, anthropology, etc., might be relevant.

The mistake that Dawkins, New Atheists, and Fark Atheists make is that they assume that the scientific plausibility of religion is the only question worth considering, and moreover that answering that one question implies the answer to whether or not religion is worthwhile (in some psychological or anthropological sense).  And that, frankly, is embarrassingly naïve and ignorant, which is why New Atheists come across as angry idiots, not just to religious people, but to most other atheists as well.

nerftaig:The idea that religion Hitchens did not engage with religion as phenomena is just incorrect. Most of his arguments were not about the disproof of god, but instead he turned an eye of criticism towards that phenomena you say he never addressed. The same could be said of most anti religious advocates, at the end of the day we don't really care about god, because god is, from our perspective, a non issue. It is that lived phenomena of religion that is problematic, and the point.

I'm sorry, but outside of a Monty Python sketch, screaming "religion is bad" doesn't count as an actual argument.

nekom: Ok that was pretty funny.

All I could picture was the deprogramming camp.

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.

You don't need to be an expert in feces to know when you're hearing a load of bullshiat.

ciberido: The mistake that Dawkins, New Atheists, and Fark Atheists make is that they assume that the scientific plausibility of religion is the only question worth considering, and moreover that answering that one question implies the answer to whether or not religion is worthwhile (in some psychological or anthropological sense).  And that, frankly, is embarrassingly naïve and ignorant, which is why New Atheists come across as angry idiots, not just to religious people, but to most other atheists as well.

Could you elaborate on that? There are a few facts about the world that don't reconcile with your word salad:

1. Daniel Dennett is a "New Atheist."  His book "Breaking the Spell" is about religion as a natural phenomenon to be studied. Isn't this exactly what you say the new atheists don't do?
2. Aren't you ignoring the fact that christains and other religionists don't argue that religion is "false but useful?"  Every religious person is making an explicit or implicit claim to knowledge about the world, either moral or otherwise. Therefore. contrary to your statement, it is sufficient to show that religion is untrue, coupled with evidence that religion causes harm, to deem it toxic (or un-worthwhile, to use your term).

Maybe you would be taken seriously if you agreed (now, not later) what arguments against religion you would consider valid. What arguments against religion would you consider as having merit?  So far there are volumes written about how each religion is empirically false/contradictory, volumes showing how it lacks any explanatory power about the world, books written about how ideas from christianity were stolen wholesale from earlier myths, and many more showing that it causes real harm.  Why are these "angry" and "idiotic?"  If these points aren't salient, which are?

ciberido: Biological Ali: Somacandra: Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.

Exactly - just like people with PhDs in Falloutology are the only ones qualified to comment on whether or not the Vault Dweller exists.

If the only question you wish to discuss is whether or not religion (or one particular religion) is SCIENTIFICALLY PLAUSIBLE, then yes, Dawkins is as qualified as anyone.

If, however, you wish to discuss the question as to whether or not religion HARMS SOCIETY, then you had better believe a knowledge of topics such as history, anthropology, etc., might be relevant.

The mistake that Dawkins, New Atheists, and Fark Atheists make is that they assume that the scientific plausibility of religion is the only question worth considering, and moreover that answering that one question implies the answer to whether or not religion is worthwhile (in some psychological or anthropological sense).  And that, frankly, is embarrassingly naïve and ignorant, which is why New Atheists come across as angry idiots, not just to religious people, but to most other atheists as well.

No we don't.  As spokesman for New Athiests United, we do recognize the mental and psychological benefits of practicing religion.  People actually do get some benefit from religion they honestly believe in.  It usually makes them feel better about themselves.  However, when practicing the religion involves contradicting proven modern science (usually medicine), and when practicing puts other people in danger, then someone needs to step in and smack them in the face.  "You no longer get to receive your mental and psychological benefits if practicing your religion puts others in physical danger", as said by the wise King Richard I.

Also, the article chiding Bill Maher is full of the derp.  Absolutely, pants-off full of the derp.  I haven't seen the Maher movie, nor do I like Maher at all. I think he's an idiot.  However, the article author is a bigger idiot.  He points out  that there is no commonly accepted definition for 'religion', and everyone's definition is different.  But then tries to make fun of Maher for having a narrower definition that he doesn't agree with.  Obviously, when Maher is referring to "religion" he isn't referring to the academic concept of religion, but is instead referring to the conservative practitioners of the religion.  Anyone with a brain would understand this given the context.

Somacandra:But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.

Religious theory: something happened that we can't explain therefore God did it.

Yeah, that's hard.

Epicedion: Oh, the old "you're not qualified to talk about religion" crap. Theology is a hobby, not a rigorous discipline.

lulz... an acquaintance of mine is at a religious school taking a course called "The Philosophy of Math"... I about had a damned aneurysm from raging so hard when he described the class. Basically, they're teaching them that all numbers, and therefore all math, is subjective.

Better that than a muslim, then he would have to cut off his own head

StrangeQ: Somacandra:But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.

Religious Big Bang theory: something happened that we can't explain therefore but God didn't do it.

Yeah, that's hard.

FTFE
Faith comes in various forms does it not?

Joe Blowme: StrangeQ: Somacandra:But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.

Religious Big Bang theory: something happened that we can't explain therefore but God didn't do it.

Yeah, that's hard.

FTFE
Faith comes in various forms does it not?

Your faith has clouded the way you think others see the world. It's more like "Big Bang Theory: something happened, we don't know why yet, so we'll with-hold judgement about what caused it until we can figure it out.

That's not faith. That is the philosophy that has allowed society to advance so far in the last few hundred years. Faith doesn't require investigation, in fact it discourages it.

ciberido: If, however, you wish to discuss the question as to whether or not religion HARMS SOCIETY, then you had better believe a knowledge of topics such as history, anthropology, etc., might be relevant.

First of all, what you're talking about and what the poster I replied to was talking about ("religious studies") are completely different things.

Second, the way to argue against someone is to refer to some specific claim that they've made, and then proceed to show why that specific claim falls short. Talking vaguely about "knowledge of topics" is a weak cop-out.

Finally, the only thing your rant about "Dawkins, New Atheists, and Fark Atheists" has demonstrated is that you haven't actually read anything that any of those people are actually saying. And that, in the end, is one of the biggest differences between theists and atheists today - due to the demographics of their societies (and very often their own homes and families), atheists can't help but be acutely aware of what religious people actually do and say, whereas the rest still have the luxury (or misfortune, depending on how you see it) of living in some sort of hallucinatory bubble regarding how actual atheists think and behave in real life.

LovingTeacher: Joe Blowme: StrangeQ: Somacandra:But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.

Religious Big Bang theory: something happened that we can't explain therefore but God didn't do it.

Yeah, that's hard.

FTFE
Faith comes in various forms does it not?

Your faith has clouded the way you think others see the world. It's more like "Big Bang Theory: something happened, we don't know why yet, so we'll with-hold judgement about what caused it until we can figure it out.

That's not faith. That is the philosophy that has allowed society to advance so far in the last few hundred years. Faith doesn't require investigation, in fact it discourages it.

Yep.  The Big Bang is the most plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe we have given our current data.

If someone came out tomorrow with a paper showing indisputable evidence of some new theory that superceded our current understanding of the big bang, I would accept it gratefully as an advancement in human understanding.

If someone runs out into the street tomorrow with some new revelation on God, they will likely be labeled as a crackpot, a lunatic and a blasphemer.

That's the difference.

LovingTeacher: Joe Blowme: StrangeQ: Somacandra:But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.

Religious Big Bang theory: something happened that we can't explain therefore but God didn't do it.

Yeah, that's hard.

FTFE
Faith comes in various forms does it not?

Your faith has clouded the way you think others see the world. It's more like "Big Bang Theory: something happened, we don't know why yet, so we'll with-hold judgement about what caused it until we can figure it out.

That's not faith. That is the philosophy that has allowed society to advance so far in the last few hundred years. Faith doesn't require investigation, in fact it discourages it.

Very good point, although i am not sure faith discourages investigation... for some im sure they "do not question their faith" but one size does not fit all. The only faith i have is that of Mr. Spock as shown in this and in the scientific method of always questioning to the point of axiom, then its no longer faith (or guessing) its fact.

Spock: "History is replete with turning points, Lieutenant. You must have faith."Valeris: "Faith?"Spock: "That the universe will unfold as it should."Valeris: "But is that logical? Surely we must....."Spock: "Logic, logic, and logic..... Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end."

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.
Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.
Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed - how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry - but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.
Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

Somacandra: exick: a subscription to a YouTube channel featuring Richard Dawkins' debates.

Oh please. Dawkins is a very good biologist. But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods. His "arguments" are warmed over 19th century anthropological criticisms and he has no clue on how to address religion as an actual lived phenomenon worldwide. He reads a few translated lines of an ancient sutra out of context and suddenly thinks he's an expert on Jainism. As a geneticist he's very good but like Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher he wouldn't get more than a "C" in a competently taught freshman religious studies course at a university.

More or less all of this. Even atheists should offended by how intellectually lazy Dawkins is.

Kid needs to see a shrink before he starts sending money to Pat Robertson.

LovingTeacher: Somacandra: But he has absolutely no training or education in religious studies theory or methods.

Oh please, "religious studies theory or methods", theories need evidence and testability neither of which apply to relicion which seems to consist of "read an old book, assume it is true and pull some ideas out of your butt". As far as I can see that's all it takes to be a religious "expert".

Your mother never taught you the phrase 'science tells you how the frog was made; religion tells you why', did she? Theology  does have theories, because the word 'theory' is not exclusive to science, and theology training  does require a lot of rigorous acadamia. People who study and become experts on religion (real experts, not the 'pastor' of the megachurch down the road) spend years learning logic, morality, and philosophy.

Not every religion is fundie evangelical megachurch Christianity, and putting everything in quotation marks does not make you right.

After the Onion deleted their tweet about  Oscar nominee Quvenzhane Wallis and issued an apology...I feel less and less inclined to read their articles. They sold out to our modern apologist lawyer driven society.

Why did this turn into Serious Thread™ ?

Epicedion: PsiChick: Your mother never taught you the phrase 'science tells you how the frog was made; religion tells you why'

Your mother never taught you that ascribing agency to natural processes leads you to irrational conclusions, did she?

Oh, look, you've uncovered the dirty secret of religion...

...Several thousand years ago.

/This is 2013. If someone  actually believes a bolt of lightning is named Zeus, that might be a valid argument, but nobody actually believes that anymore.
//And no, nobody who isn't an utter idiot believes God found missing car keys either.
///If I had a nickel for each time I'd heard this strawman...

Epicedion: PsiChick: Oh, look, you've uncovered the dirty secret of religion...

...Several thousand years ago.

/This is 2013. If someone  actually believes a bolt of lightning is named Zeus, that might be a valid argument, but nobody actually believes that anymore.
//And no, nobody who isn't an utter idiot believes God found missing car keys either.
///If I had a nickel for each time I'd heard this strawman...

Surely, you believe in a much more sophisticated, modern version of ascribing agency to the universe than those stupid peasants thousands of years ago.

Tell you what, I'll explain my beliefs to you if you answer this question: Why do you care? What the hell does it matter to you what other people believe?

/And if the answer is 'because religion causes harm in the world', answer this: Have you looked up the rate of Catholics who use birth control? Believing in a religion doesn't always mean you support what the organization does, so how does mocking other people's faith help stop religion from causing harm in the world instead of, hell, even joining Amnesty International?

Epicedion: PsiChick: Tell you what, I'll explain my beliefs to you if you answer this question: Why do you care? What the hell does it matter to you what other people believe?

I don't care what they believe. I care what they promote, and you were promoting bullshiat.

The idea that to be an  actual expert in religion, not just an online-degree pastor, takes years of training in logic, debate, philosophy  and other topics?

So much bullshiat that some of the most famous secular colleges in the world agree with me.

/I'm stunned you're pretending to be on the scientific side of this. Facts are not only knowable, Mr. Google sometimes even has them for free. No experimentation required.

Epicedion: RobSeace:
I don't want to speak for Epicedion, but I'm pretty sure the bullshiat in question was that "religion eplains why [the frog was created]"... It presumes there is a "why", and it presumes religion knows what it is... I disagree with both presumptions...

That  is what I was taking issue with directly, yes.

Lucky I hit refresh, then...

Yes. It's an oversimplification based on prior uses of religion. Religion is an enculturation device (I'm anthro-nerding, if you don't recognize terms Google can probably explain them to you) that was previously used to explain the world where science didn't exist. For example, knowing that the volcano gods liked to throw a party every two years like clockwork meant you knew when to GTFO. However, in modern day the enculturation is designed for group behavior, i.e. religion is meant to help keep you from telling a white lie, because as a group we find some white lies to be dangerous to social success (if the company's failing and it would be rude to say it, it might be  dangerous to the company to claim it isn't). You can see this in nearly any testimony about religion changing people's lives--they experience direct benefits because it is a very important enculturation method that provides a framework for the universe.

Yes, that's bullshiat. An actual expert in religion would be an expert in history, literature, and anthropology, in order to study the lore, myths, and cultural influences associated with religion.

But see, by that criteria now you're spouting bullshiat because you forgot to mention the exact menu the cafeteria serves. My point remains whether or not I named every single course of study: Theology (the word for the field of religious study) is a rigorous academic discipline, not something you 'pull out of your ass'.

PsiChick: Epicedion: PsiChick: Tell you what, I'll explain my beliefs to you if you answer this question: Why do you care? What the hell does it matter to you what other people believe?

I don't care what they believe. I care what they promote, and you were promoting bullshiat.

The idea that to be an  actual expert in religion, not just an online-degree pastor, takes years of training in logic, debate, philosophy  and other topics?

So much bullshiat that some of the most famous secular colleges in the world agree with me.

/I'm stunned you're pretending to be on the scientific side of this. Facts are not only knowable, Mr. Google sometimes even has them for free. No experimentation required.

No, he was responding to the comment "science tells you how the frog was made; religion tells you why"and that  IS utter BS. It is ascribing agency to the universe for no discernible reason. You say there is a why so there MUST be one. And yes my (poor sad deluded) catholic mother did tell me that or something very like it. She was very educated in the ways of the catholic church and was the director of religious education for more than 25 years for a parish that had weekly attendance of around 3,500 people.

Now as for being educated in the ways of a religion, just because a University offers a degree in something does not make it a worthwhile endeavor to get that degree (keep in mind all of the women's or ethnic studies programs out there). There is also a huge difference between studying religion (comparitive religion without the neccesity of buying into the truthfulness of any particular religion) and studying theology (often of a single religion and entry into the school is predicated on being a believer). I really don't care how many years you study  HOW the wine and bread turn into the blood and body of Jesus, if they DON'T turn into flesh and blood then those years are wasted years. They don't make you some kind of expert just sadly deluded.

/not that believing in god neccesarily makes you sadly deluded but if you (like my parents) believe that the bread actually changes and that the reason you can't see the change is a "mystery" then yes you are sadly deluded.

PsiChick: Theology (the word for the field of religious study) is a rigorous academic discipline, not something you 'pull out of your ass'.

Nope, sorry, it may be called that by those who study it and it may have tons of literature to research but as a couple of other people have pointed out theology makes claims about reality (the study of law, for instance, doesn't do that) so what has all this rigorous study produced? What predictions about the world has it made? And keep in mind the old GIGO principle, if you are rigorously studying ideas that others have just 'pulled out of their ass' then your rigorous study is not worth much. As far as I can tell there have been no discoveries, experiments or predictions that came true from theology so that pretty much makes it "pulled from someones ass"

Epicedion: LovingTeacher: PsiChick: Theology (the word for the field of religious study) is a rigorous academic discipline, not something you 'pull out of your ass'.

Nope, sorry, it may be called that by those who study it and it may have tons of literature to research but as a couple of other people have pointed out theology makes claims about reality (the study of law, for instance, doesn't do that) so what has all this rigorous study produced? What predictions about the world has it made? And keep in mind the old GIGO principle, if you are rigorously studying ideas that others have just 'pulled out of their ass' then your rigorous study is not worth much. As far as I can tell there have been no discoveries, experiments or predictions that came true from theology so that pretty much makes it "pulled from someones ass"

The study of law is a good example here. Law is a practical discipline and worth studu since we know there are laws and courts. Studying the laws of some other culture might be worthwhile to understand how and why laws appear in human society in general, but that's more the realm of anthropology and history. Studying how and why religions form in societies has merit, again anthropology, but studying the philosopical underpinnings with some Truth goal in mind would only be meritous if in fact the religion were founded in facts about reality. That's where theology breaks from religious studies.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Just because a subject doesn't create products through scientific inquiry doesn't automatically make it unworthy of study, Law, History and Art are three good examples, but I really cannot see any use for theology. What good has theology ever given us? And to reiterate what both Epicedion and I have said: Theology IS NOT the same as Religious Studies. Religious Studies could actually point out some insights about humanity, Theology can point out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

buckler: Why did this turn into Serious Thread™ ?

In case you still don't get it, Somacandra: religion is bullshiat.