The real Stephen Colbert is actually a practicing Roman Catholic. (And Sunday School teacher, amusing as that sounds) While he was certainly 'in character' and making ridiculous remarks and objections for humor's sake, I think he did genuinely disagree with what Dawkins was saying. I think it's rather funny - and a little tragic - that his role playing got in the way of a substantive discussion. There was a glimmer of it there at the end, but the limits of the program (Both time-wise, and the extremely limited amount of actual discussion that can take place) prevented it from becoming anything extremely interesting.
He said that you could call religious belief a 'basic belief', but the evidence he gave for it (it's natural, and it's 50/50) is no good. First it's not natural to believe in God, and if we are to believe everything we can't disprove the situation becomes stupid.
If the non human citizens of the world believe in the Christian god, it is not readily apparent, so I agree. Using your figure of 70%, it would appear to me that not only do humans have the capacity to believe in god, but they also seem to have a tendency to do so. Merely having a religion or other spiritual connection appears to be very important to most people. The need to organize the universe around something looks like a very fundamental drive for us.
Winner, your problem is very simple: you're a religious fanatic. You're really not a whole lot different from the people the Islamic or Christian fanatics that you so loathe.
*gong* Here we go again: the notorious "you're just like them" pseudo-argument. The bad thing about it is, Elrohir, that (1) you don't understand the term; (2) it doesn't apply to me and a simple assertion won't make it so.
Let me quote from Free Online Dictionary and Merriam-Webster dictionary:
fa·nat·ic (f-ntk)
n.
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
Etymology: Latin fanaticus inspired by a deity, frenzied, from fanum temple -- more at FEAST
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion <they're fanatic about politics>
Both definition are entirely at odds with my opinions on the subject, therefore your assertion is wrong. In fact, I find it both offensive and hypocritical that I am supposedly "arrogant" when I call believers deluded, but when the other side spout offenses about me, Dawkins or atheism in general, it's supposed to be OK.
Rest of the paragraph in spoiler tags:
Spoiler:
You see, the mark of a fanatic is not belief in any particular deity or doctrine - you may be a fanatical follower of Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, or the Dark Side of the Force. The mark of a true fanatic is certainty matched with arrogance; such rock solid certainty that he is correct that he comes to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with him must either be insane, or simply stupid. The fanatic cannot tolerate the idea that reasonable people might just disagree, not out of mental illness, but because different personalities, experiences, and ways of thinking cause them to have different opinions on various issues. The cause or ideal that the fanatic fights for, and his methods, change over time - fanatics may ban books, chop off heads, or simply scream at people for being delusional on the internet, all for the sake of God, or a doctrine, or even just some sort of tradition - but the essence of the fanatic remains the same.
No, that is not correct. Fanatism and lunacy aren't the same thing. I don't think that most believers are fanatics and I don't believe most of them are lunatic. You again fail to understand what I am saying: that is that the idea of God and the blind faith in this entity is so irrational and inconsistent with reality that it qualifies as delusion. It has nothing to do with how serious you are about religion, the very fact that you believe in god makes you deluded. Which brings us to the next part...
And all the while, all you're doing is making yourself their equal, in thought, if not necessarily in violent deed.
As proven above, this assertion is wrong on all accounts.
I'll debate with people of other religions, or of no religions like yourself, but I don't personally lose respect for them - because I learned a long time ago that sometimes people just think differently. That doesn't mean we're all equally right - but that does mean that a lot of us are just sincerely, honestly, and sanely wrong. That's something my father told me when I was about 5 years old, and it took me over a decade to really and truly understand it. It's unfortunate that you still don't.
It's unfortunate that you didn't read my post correctly. I said, specifically, that I don't respect religion. This has nothing to do with whether I respect the religious person or not, I decide that based on many other things. I have friends who've done some pretty stupid things in their life (even one who converted to Christianity!), things I totally disagreed with, considered them crazy and idiotic. Even though I still respect them and call them friends. The same goes to faith. My half-sister is a nun - does it mean I'd spit in her face and tell her she's an useless moron? No. You're trying to depict me as some kind of arrogant rude person, but once again you fail to back your assertion with something solid.
And before you start searching the forum for everything I ever said: not everything you say is meant seriously, especially in a heat of a discussion. If I started counting how many times I called my younger brothers "idiots" or how many time I told them "I'll kill you", I'd spend the rest of my life doing it The point is, I didn't meat it seriously.
Atheism is the belief that no god, or gods, exist. Disbelieving in any one particular god, does not make one an atheist.
What I wanted to show you is the process by which we atheists reach the conclusion that there is no God. Christians don't believe in many other deities from other parts of the world - why? Because they find the idea ridiculous? Because there is no evidence? Because it is just plain silly?
Great, so you see why we don't believe in any god. I dare say that most of Christians alive today were brought up in the faith, so they simply follow what they've been taught as kids. If an average Christian had been raised in India, he'd have become a Hindu instead. If he had grown up in the deep African jungle, he'd become an animist. See, there are so many different ideas of what/who God is, that the arrogance with which believers assert that their God is the right, true and only one is beyond ridiculous. It's also extremelly hypocritical - if you can refuse all other Gods because you find them implausible, but then you throw away your logic and reasoning and blindly believe in another one which happened to be put into your head by your parents when you were young, you are a hypocrite.
(btw, when I say "you", I don't mean just you personaly, I am talking about believers in general. This applies to the rest of your response below too
And you think I am? I often make people very angry, because I insist that there is an absolute truth out there. I'm not a relativist when it comes to morality or almost anything else. But I have respect for intelligent people, who happen to disagree with myself - other Christians, Muslims, atheists, whatever - because they're sincere, smart people, and they deserve it. I'm not suggesting that all their opinions are equally correct, or even equally respectable (Worshiping an idol you made out of a tree in your backyard is less respectable than belonging to a sophisticated, thought out religion, for instance)[/QUOTE]
Why not? It's the same thing - a blind faith in something implausible. Worshiping an idol you carved in your backyards is as "legitimate" as worshiping a God which supposedly reincarnated himself as a man to die for the sins of humanity - sins he could have simply forgiven without all the theatrics.
Believing in something ridiculous simply because it has been around for thousands of years is foolish. I don't believe in Greek gods, and they're just as old as Christianity. I don't believe in ancient Slavic deities, because I find the idea silly.
Christianity is no better, it is a religion derived from ancient tribal belief of the Jews and it relies on no evidence, just a fairy-tale book written, re-written, edited and translated so many times that it has absolutely no relevance today. Besides, nothing it contains answers the question WHY you believe that it is true. Why don't you believe that Lord of the Rings is true? Oh I forgot - it's not old enough
And I think you need to understand, Winner, that saying that someone is delusional is a personal attack.
No. I say that religion is a delusion and so by implication that those who have religion are delusional in that respect. The problem with believers is that they take religion so seriously that they take it as a personal attack. But whose problem is that? Not mine.
You aren't saying they're beliefs are wrong - you're saying they are too deluded to come to the right beliefs.
I never said that. Prove me wrong by quoting the exact sentence where I said that believers can't realize they've been wrong and become atheists.
Why don't you ask the people here with religious beliefs that differ from my own on how I respond to them? Ask Eran and Downtown if I "scorn, loathe, insult and suppress" their opinions on why Mormon theology is more correct than my own. Ask El Mac and Fifty and Bill if I "scorn, loathe, insult and suppress" their opinions on atheism. I'm even talking with you, and without trying to "scorn, loathe, insult and suppress" your opinions, even though you're a lot more annoying in your fanatical beliefs than they are in their reasoned ones. The only one here heaping scorn and loathing on his opponents is you.
Again, I was talking about believers in general. And religion does want and try to suppress everything which strikes against the basis of it - faith. Which is, I think, why you're so outraged by people like Dawkins who don't care about theology, who are not willing to argue God on your terms, but simply ask for evidence for all this. And when you can offer any evidence, the religious self-preservation mechanism awakes and you start calling these people "jerks", "arrogant", "offensive" etc. Saying so doesn't make it right, how many times do I have to mention that?
Yes he is using satire. He is clearly making bogus point after bogus point. Dawkins is aware of this. The audience is aware of this. Small puppies are aware of this.
Please, for the sake of argument, what was that valid point he made, since I could not make it out, even when provided with the time frame in which this valid point was made
*gong* Here we go again: the notorious "you're just like them" pseudo-argument. The bad thing about it is, Elrohir, that (1) you don't understand the term; (2) it doesn't apply to me and a simple assertion won't make it so.
Let me quote from Free Online Dictionary and Merriam-Webster dictionary:
You don't think it applies to you - but it does. You have such zeal, such certainty, in your beliefs, that you believe anyone who disagrees with you is deluded, or stupid. That's a fanatical and narrow-minded viewpoint.
Both definition are entirely at odds with my opinions on the subject, therefore your assertion is wrong. In fact, I find it both offensive and hypocritical that I am supposedly "arrogant" when I call believers deluded, but when the other side spout offenses about me, Dawkins or atheism in general, it's supposed to be OK.
I find it hilarious that you are the one taking offense. You're insisting that me, my friends, my family, and a solid majority of the human race for all of recorded history are all mentally ill - and then you have the gall to be offended when you are called on your arrogance and your blind fanaticism. It's very, very funny, if only you could see it.
No, that is no correct. Fanatism and lunacy aren't the same thing. I don't think that most believers are fanatics and I don't believe most of them are lunatic. You again fail to understand what I am saying: that is, the idea of God and the blind faith in this entity is irrational and inconsistent with reality in such a way that it qualifies as delusion. It has nothing to do with how serious you are about religion, the very fact that you believe in god makes you deluded. Which brings us to the last part...
No, fanaticism and lunacy are not the same thing. But the fanatical are usually also lunatics, although the lunatics are not always fanatical. (Although I suppose they can be - a man who is fanatical in his belief that he is Napoleon is no less a lunatic for his fervency) I'll put it simply for you: the fanatic is one who is blinded by enthusiasm or certainty in a certain idea, to the extent that he cannot understand how anyone could differ from him, and be sane or intelligent. And I'm afraid in this discussion, that's you. I say this not because you're an atheist, but because you dare to presume that everyone who disagrees with you is mentally deficient.
The idea that religion must be based on blind faith is a false one - and honestly, it shows how little you truly know of religious belief, even of the Christian variety. I honestly find it rather depressing that you equate religion with blind faith.
It's unfortunate that you didn't read my post correctly. I said, specifically, that I don't respect religion. This has nothing to do with whether I respect the religious person or not, I decide it based on many other things. I have friends who've done some pretty stupid things in their life, things I totally disagreed with, considered them crazy and idiotic. Even though I still respect them and call them friends. The same goes to faith. My half-sister is a nun - does it mean I'd spit in her face and tell her she's useless moron? No. You're trying to depict me as some kind of arrogant rude person, but once again you fail to back your assertion with something solid.
Insisting that someone is mentally ill for sincerely holding a belief is an attack on the person. That you're so blinded that you think it's not - I guess because you're so sure that you're right? - says a good deal about your ability to empathize with others, and nothing good. You said that "religions don't deserve any respect," and compared religion with Anti-Semitism and genocidal thought. You can say that you respect religious people if you want, but it's quite clear that you don't. And that you don't think saying "you're mentally ill" is a personal attack shows how blind you really are.
And before you start searching the forum for every thing I ever said: not everything you say is meant seriously, especially in a heat of an discussion. If I started counting how many times I called my younger brothers "idiots" or how many time I told them "I'll kill you", I'd spend the rest of my life doing it The point is, I didn't meat it seriously.
Is your assertion that religion is a mental illness an example of you saying something you don't really mean, in the heat of a discussion? If it's not, then this is a pointless thing to say.
No. I say that religion is a delusion and so by implication that those who have religion are delusional in that respect. The problem with believers is that they take religion so seriously that they take it as a personal attack. But whose problem is that? Not mine.
It's your problem if you expect an ounce of respect from anyone who takes their faith - or the faith of those they care about - seriously. You certainly don't have any respect from me.
So I quoted the dictionaries all for nothing I guess. So I spent 2 minutes articulating my response and refuting your assertion all in vain because... you just believe I am a fanatic. That's right - see, I am not surprised at all that this comes from a religious person.
You have such zeal, such certainty, in your beliefs, that you believe anyone who disagrees with you is deluded, or stupid. That's a fanatical and narrow-minded viewpoint.
And you do it again - type lies about me. Did you read my previous post, I mean really read it? Or you just skipped through and now you just continue in the rant?
Unlike religious people, I don't claim certainty. I am not so arrogant to claim that I know that there is some magical being which does this and that. What I do, Elrohir, is that I continue to demand evidence and logical reasoning from believers. All I got so far were insults and accusations. Am I the wrong one here? No.
I find it hilarious that you are the one taking offense.
I didn't, really, I just wanted to hear your response to the common religious people's practice of taking offense every time somebody tells them something they don't like.
You're insisting that me, my friends, my family, and a solid majority of the human race for all of recorded history are all mentally ill - and then you have the gall to be offended when you are called on your arrogance and your blind fanaticism. It's very, very funny, if only you could see it.
What is very funny is that you completely miss the point. As I said many times - belief in irrational unreal things is a delusion. Ergo, when you believe that you're surrounded by dead people who talk to you, you're deluded and most likely you'll end up in a mental hospital. If a guy says "sorry, I can't go to the cemetery because there would be many more spirits of the dead around me and I simply couldn't take it", then a reaction of most people to that would be: " But that's crazy!"
Yet, when religious people say things like "I won't eat pork because Koran tells me it's impure" or "I won't use contraception because I believe it's a sin", it's not crazy, it's called religion
You believe in something, blindly (=without evidence) and this belief influences your behaviour. When you're acting on a delusion, you can be considered mentally ill.
See, I don't use it as an offense, it's a conclusion based on reasoning and accepted definitions. But skip all the pretense, I don't use this very much, I just stick to calling religion a delusion or mindkiller, and I still get this crap "you're arrogant, you offend us". If you're so touchy it's not my problem, sorry. If I cried "that's an offense" every time somebody criticizes the EU or tells me that my favourite book is rubbish, I'd be offended all the time.
No, fanaticism and lunacy are not the same thing. But the fanatical are usually also lunatics, although the lunatics are not always fanatical. (Although I suppose they can be - a man who is fanatical in his belief that he is Napoleon is no less a lunatic for his fervency) I'll put it simply for you: the fanatic is one who is blinded by enthusiasm or certainty in a certain idea, to the extent that he cannot understand how anyone could differ from him, and be sane or intelligent. And I'm afraid in this discussion, that's you. I say this not because you're an atheist, but because you dare to presume that everyone who disagrees with you is mentally deficient.
Prove to me that belief in god is not a delusion. Prove to me that it is not irrational and that god is real. THEN, AND ONLY THEN you can call my conclusions wrong. Do you get it? Please say you do, I want to move on to something more useful than pointless arguing about who's bad and insensitive.
The idea that religion must be based on blind faith is a false one - and honestly, it shows how little you truly know of religious belief, even of the Christian variety. I honestly find it rather depressing that you equate religion with blind faith.
Fine, you said all that but something's missing - an argument. You just said "you're wrong, it's not like you say and I find it depressing that you're wrong."But you forgot to mention WHY is it wrong.
Insisting that someone is mentally ill for sincerely holding a belief is an attack on the person.
If the belief is a delusion, it is perfectly legitimate to call such a person mentally ill. If you told me "I am a crocodile" and you sincerely believed that, you'd still be crazy. Do you understand that?
That you're so blinded that you think it's not - I guess because you're so sure that you're right? - says a good deal about your ability to empathize with others, and nothing good.
So far I've been the one who has (over and over and over and over again) given you arguments, reasoning and tons and tons of good analogies in order to make you understand. You not only ignored all that, but you started calling me all these things without any reason or arguments at all. Please, Elrohir, stop for a minute and re-examine your position.
You said that "religions don't deserve any respect," and compared religion with Anti-Semitism and genocidal thought.
Belief isn't the only thing that makes a personality, and it is quite sad that you act like it was. I have no respect for hip-hop, but it doesn't mean that I can't respect a person who likes hip-hop. Get it?
Is your assertion that religion is a mental illness an example of you saying something you don't really mean, in the heat of a discussion? If it's not, then this is a pointless thing to say.
See above. Belief in irrational unreal things can be considered a mental illness. Don't worry, if religion is not counted as so, it's said that at least 10% of all people suffer of some sort of mental disorder. Mostly it's harmless just as faith is in most believers. But the fact doesn't make it rational. See the examples I've given you - if you believed you were a crocodile, you're be mentally ill. Not seriously though, if you didn't start trying to eat people or stay underwater for half an hour.
It's your problem if you expect an ounce of respect from anyone who takes their faith - or the faith of those they care about - seriously. You certainly don't have any respect from me.
So, me not respecting your beliefs is wrong, despicable and it means that I don't have a respect for you as a person, which makes it even wronger and more despicable.
But you not respecting me personally because I don't respect your beliefs is... OK?
This'll be a short response. The amount of time I spend talking with someone is pretty much directly proportional with how much I respect them, and you've pretty much used up your store.
So I quoted the dictionaries all for nothing I guess. So I spent 2 minutes articulating my response and refuting your assertion all in vain because... you just believe I am a fanatic. That's right - see, I am not surprised at all that this comes from a religious person.
Your quoted definitions didn't contradict what I was saying. Furthermore, you didn't even really address how I was defining fanatic, or why it applied to you at all - all you said was that that's "entirely at odds with my opinions on the subject, therefore your assertion is wrong." You didn't give any indication of actually having read what I was saying at all.
You believe in something, blindly (=without evidence) and this belief influences your behaviour. When you're acting on a delusion, you can be considered mentally ill.
That you think all religious belief is inherently blind, and without any basis in evidence shows your ignorance. Please, Winner, do a little reading on the subject of faith. Talk with Plotinus in his Theologian thread - he's not a theist by any means, but even he can explain this to you. Maybe he'll have the patience that I don't.
That you think faith is inherently blind shows that you know almost nothing of what faith is. That's the real tragedy here: you're condemning and judging people based on something you don't even understand.
No, I didn't, prove me wrong by quoting the exact sentence where I did that.
Belief isn't the only thing that makes a personality, and it is quite sad that you act like it was. I have no respect for hip-hop, but it doesn't mean that I can respect a person who likes hip-hop. Get it?
But would you insist that someone who likes hip hop is deluded?
I don't personally care for hip hop a great deal, either. But I would never say that someone who likes hip hop is mentally ill. That's the difference, Winner - you aren't just saying that "I don't personally find religion to be what I'm looking for" or "I don't understand it." You're saying that it's inherently unrespectable, irrational, and delusional. If you were simply expressing a personal opinion, like you do about your music taste, no one would take any offense at all!
So, me not respecting your beliefs is wrong, despicable and it means that I don't have a respect for you as a person, which makes it even wronger and more despicable.
But you not respecting me personally because I don't respect yopur beliefs is... OK?
Winner, I have no respect for you not because you have an opinion, but because you're an unpleasant, judgmental, obnoxious person. I'm sure you'll brush this aside with an arrogant smile, and chalk it up to my inherent irrationality - but I'm being perfectly honest with you, and I guarantee you, lots of other people feel exactly the same way. You aren't deserving of my respect, because you can't progress beyond the genuinely childish view that people who disagree with you must be mentally ill. You reason like a child, you think like a child, but you think you're a grown man.
I'm done. If you want my further input on anything, you can PM me, and if it's politely phrased, I'll respond. Otherwise, please don't waste either of our time further by responding to anything I say - in this thread, or in any others. You're one of the few people here that I have truly no respect for in the slightest.
This'll be a short response. The amount of time I spend talking with someone is pretty much directly proportional with how much I respect them, and you've pretty much used up your store.
And I am supposed to regreat it? You've failed to address most of my points and you used your time to insult me, accuse me of being a fanatic without backing it up and telling me how you not respect me, because I don't respect your delusional beliefs.
You're a master of civilized discussion really
Your quoted definitions didn't contradict what I was saying. Furthermore, you didn't even really address how I was defining fanatic, or why it applied to you at all - all you said was that that's "entirely at odds with my opinions on the subject, therefore your assertion is wrong." You didn't give any indication of actually having read what I was saying at all.
This is like talking to a deaf. The definitions clearly show that in order to be a fanatic, you must either be religious, or you must be motivated by "unreasoning enthusiasm". I have backed my claims with arguments anda lot of reasoning, whereas you just accuse, insult and play offended.
That you think all religious belief is inherently blind, and without any basis in evidence shows your ignorance. Please, Winner, do a little reading on the subject of faith. Talk with Plotinus in his Theologian thread - he's not a theist by any means, but even he can explain this to you. Maybe he'll have the patience that I don't.
No. I won't read what Plotinus said, I won't read the Bible and I won't read anything even remotely related to theology. I want YOU to give me at least a small peace of rational proof of your theistic belief. If you don't do that, then I am perfectly correct in calling your faith blind - blind faith means that you believe in something without having a rational justification and evidence for it.
That you think faith is inherently blind shows that you know almost nothing of what faith is. That's the real tragedy here: you're condemning and judging people based on something you don't even understand.
I repeatedly asked you to provide proofs for your claims and you repeatedly failed. Now you tell me that I don't understand what faith is Faith is:
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
When you believe in something without evidence, especially when this thing is extremelly implausible ("I believe there is an invisible pink elephant in my apartnment"), then your faith is blind and I am absolutely right in calling it a delusion.
I compared religion to a political ideology, that's correct. Then I gave an example of a stupid political ideology I (and you) wouldn't respect and another superstition I wouldn't respect.
Now you're telling me that I actually compared religion to genocide and antisemitism. It's a fallacy, because you don't explain how you got from the point A to point B. You once again intentionally misinterpret what I say and once again you got caught.
But would you insist that someone who likes hip hop is deluded?
If he also believed that listening to hip-hop will secure him a place in heaven when he dies and his soul lefts a body, yes. I used this example to explain that respect for a belief/taste/preference DOES NOT EQUAL to respect for the person who holds it.
Winner, I have no respect for you not because you have an opinion, but because you're an unpleasant, judgmental, obnoxious person.
Stop using the word inherent. I never said that believers are inherently irrational as human beings, I said that their RELIGION (or faith) is inherently irrational. And because their faith is irrational and they act on it, they're often behaving in an irrational way which you're a living proof of right now.
Again, two separate things but you so insist on taking an offense that you constantly confuse these things, on prupose I believe.
- but I'm being perfectly honest with you, and I guarantee you, lots of other people feel exactly the same way. You aren't deserving of my respect, because you can't progress beyond the genuinely childish view that people who disagree with you must be mentally ill.
That's not what I am saying, you lie about my views again! What I am saying is that people who fail to back up their beliefs with evidence, who fail to provide rational justification, are wrong and deluded.
You reason like a child, you think like a child, but you think you're a grown man.
More insults, Elrohir? It's you who failed to back up your claims with evidence (how many times do I have to tell you this?), but you accuse me of childish reasoning.
Get a grip.
I'm done. If you want my further input on anything, you can PM me, and if it's politely phrased, I'll respond. Otherwise, please don't waste either of our time further by responding to anything I say - in this thread, or in any others. You're one of the few people here that I have truly no respect for in the slightest.
No, I am done with you as well. Come back when you actually find some proof that your faith is something more that your personal gut feeling. If this proof is solid, I'll apologize to you and all other believers and embark on a pillgrimage to Mecca or whatever the God will demand.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
The point is, I didn't meat it seriously.
