Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
152. This isn't about belief, it's about facts and history -apologists distort both to pimp their agenda.
Fri Mar 31, 2017, 03:35 PM
Mar 2017
I would put Armstrong's credentials and detailed citations up against a movie critic any time. Multiple books, peer reviewed articles and Ted Talks and awards mean something to me. I have read Hitchins even though I don't agree with him.


What credentials? She's a former nun and English teacher turned apologist who specializes in historical revisionism. Why would anyone besides other apologists think she's credible on the subject of history? That's like asking me to have faith in Neo-Confederates' historical revisionism because they also wrote articles and books.

Christian apologists are no different than Neo-Confederate apologists - they both blur the truth because they see it as hostile to their worldview. They both attempt to whitewash history and absolve their own of any blame. And both are extremely popular among their peers, but that doesn't make them more knowledgeable than unbiased historians. Anyone can claim to be a historian and I regularly debate Civil War 'scholars' who insist the war had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. I don't find them any more credible than Armstrong.



Maybe you should do the same, she does a better job of describing the use of mythos in religion better than I ever could.


Frankly I'm not interested in her theo-babble either, I don't care for religious naval gazing. Daniel Dennett has her number and I'll put his credentials up against the former English teacher's any day:

Her most prominent rationalist critic is Daniel Dennett, who finds her views to be mushy, muddled, and confused. She arguably fits Dennett's definition of a "murky" who advocates accepting an ambiguous and mysterious world, as opposed to a "super" with clearly defined belief in supernatural miracles (or a rationalist "bright&quot . Dennett has argued that her confused worldview is part of the way that modern religion has evolved to protect its existence. Dennett's critique was presented as part of his presentation The Evolution of Confusion at the 2007 AAI conference. P. Z. Myers has also weighed in, objecting to her presentation of the history of religion.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong


People with confirmation bias prefer polemicists like Armstrong who revise history and lie about the causes of religious violence because apologists care more about protecting religion's reputation and defending it from those awful secularists than they do about truth.

Apologists also absolve religion and blame other factors for violence and other immorality because that allows them to feel superior, they regularly lay the blame on secularism and science. When apologists claim faith ONLY motivates people to do good things that 'proves' religious people are inherently more moral than atheists. Religious moral superiority is a comfortable delusion but it's founded on bigotry.



But that's the point, you don't understand how the Bible can be an instrument for good and it's obvious you have no interest in learning.


Yet another straw man. Why do you keep misrepresenting my posts?

Intellectual dishonesty

Some intellectual dishonesty can be subtle. For example, relevant facts and information may be purposefully omitted when such things contradict one's hypothesis, or facts may be presented in a biased manner or twisted to give misleading impressions. Broadly speaking, any of the following behaviors would fall under intellectual dishonesty.

Deliberately ignoring facts and arguments that would undermine your position. (willful ignorance)

Knowingly using a logical fallacy.

Common forms of intellectual dishonesty include plagiarism, applying double standards, using false analogies, exaggeration and overgeneralization, presenting straw man arguments, and poisoning the well (not literally).

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty


Let me repeat myself one more time because it's obvious you're deliberately misrepresenting my words and I think it's important to call out that kind of tactic. I have NEVER said that religion can't inspire people to do good things.

In fact I actually stated this in my previous post and you completely ignored it:

And we don't claim that religion doesn't inspire people to do good things. We simply prefer a more realistic historical perspective - one not based on years of bible class and a chronic lack of exposure to facts about religious persecution throughout the ages.




Apparently you also missed the point of ALL of my posts in this thread and I'm tired of battling your straw man army so I'm going to simplify it.


1) The bible commands believers to oppress, torture and murder people. That is a fact, it is not up for debate, there are no alternative interpretations of the passages I cited just like there are no alternative facts.

2) Christians have followed those instructions for thousands of years resulting in the suffering and deaths of millions. That is a fact, it is part of every historical record and it is not up for debate.

3) Christians are still using the bible to oppress women, lgbt people and followers of other religions. This is a fact, it is not up for debate, you can hear them cite it every weekend in thousands of churches all over the world.

4) Religious people commit atrocities because they believe that's what their god wants them to do. This is a fact, it is not up for debate, they willingly admit they're motivated by religion.

5) I do not dispute that people also do good things because of religion. This fact is irrelevant because it doesn't disprove my point - which is that millions of people still suffered and died because of religion throughout history.

Stating over and over again that religion can be a force for good doesn't absolve religion or religious people who commit atrocities. Attempting to rewrite history to absolve religion and religious people is disrespectful to the victims of of those atrocities - and I care more about telling their stories than I do about the feelings of believers who are offended by them.

When it comes to agreeing to disagree you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. No one has been able to prove religious oppression and violence isn't motivated by religion and that hasn't changed because popular apologists sold a few books.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

To me, that's bad news. DavidDvorkin Mar 2017 #1
Glass half full versus glass half empty? eom guillaumeb Mar 2017 #12
No, it's bad news that it's so high DavidDvorkin Mar 2017 #20
Can't say I agree -nt Bradical79 Mar 2017 #2
Quick questions: Lordquinton Mar 2017 #3
Henry Dawkins for the first two. rug Mar 2017 #4
That's a real stretch Lordquinton Mar 2017 #5
Post removed Post removed Mar 2017 #6
Your first post in a week and it's a personal attack? Lordquinton Mar 2017 #7
Oh I think we can do better. For instance wasn't the first slave ship named after Jesus? beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #8
Mark Twain had much to say on the subject of peace and religion: beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #9
That's a good, and overlooked point Lordquinton Mar 2017 #10
I thought about that too but for eight years we made it clear we weren't in a holy war with Islam. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #16
That is true. Lordquinton Mar 2017 #17
LIKE pangaia Mar 2017 #36
:) beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #45
Do you subscribe to the "great man" theory of history? guillaumeb Mar 2017 #13
Many slaveholders were religious Lordquinton Mar 2017 #15
Except religious abolitionists went against their own holy book when they opposed slavery. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #18
I follow the New Testament. eom guillaumeb Mar 2017 #25
Was slavery forbidden in the New Testament? beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #46
Fit the concept into "Do unto others" and you tell me. eom guillaumeb Mar 2017 #54
If that was such an important concept why did so many Christians support slavery? beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #57
If you ask me my personal opinion on these issues, guillaumeb Mar 2017 #58
Yes - but again said atheists aren't citing a holy book to support those positions. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #61
Absurd is one word. Sad is another. eom guillaumeb Mar 2017 #66
They cite the holy book of profit and loss and progress HopeAgain Mar 2017 #101
Oh? We have a holy book? And what's this 'atheist bible' called? beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #107
You are painting all people with faith with a broad brush... HopeAgain Mar 2017 #109
Really? Quoting the bible is "attacking faith" and stating facts is "stereotyping" people? beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #111
Most Christians do not take everything in the Bible literally or apply ancient laws to modern life.. HopeAgain Mar 2017 #113
Since I never actually said that you're using a straw man. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #114
Taking the specific and generalizing it to the whole.. HopeAgain Mar 2017 #123
Didn't I ask you to stop misrepresenting my posts? beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #128
A large number of athiest HopeAgain Mar 2017 #132
A large number of theists do the same every weekend in church. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #134
And we need to remember how HopeAgain Mar 2017 #135
More logical fallacies? beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #136
Wow, what a blind spot... HopeAgain Mar 2017 #137
Cite your source please. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #138
And how many different interpretations are there for these?: beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #112
Straw Argument HopeAgain Mar 2017 #143
Again - not a straw man since you suggested there were different interpretations. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #144
Interesting. I googled your religious "scholar" and it appears I was correct. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #145
You are going to believe what you want to believe HopeAgain Mar 2017 #149
This isn't about belief, it's about facts and history -apologists distort both to pimp their agenda. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #152
So to sum it all up HopeAgain Mar 2017 #155
Not quite but we're getting there. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #156
"Slaves, obey your masters": Paul, in the New Teatament Bretton Garcia Apr 2017 #158
Matt 10:34 NeoGreen Mar 2017 #102
Define metaphor. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #105
And apply that definition too... NeoGreen Mar 2017 #108
There are literalists, and not-literalists. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #116
Piffle... NeoGreen Mar 2017 #119
In that vein, guillaumeb Mar 2017 #122
You prove my point... NeoGreen Mar 2017 #125
"But religion is a force for great good." Act_of_Reparation Mar 2017 #11
Patriotism can also be a force for good, guillaumeb Mar 2017 #14
I assume you're trying to make some sort of point here. Act_of_Reparation Mar 2017 #22
The point is that people justify what they do by saying that they are following a code of behavior. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #26
But you can't point to line and verse in the patriot book Lordquinton Mar 2017 #31
I can point to the Monroe Doctrine, guillaumeb Mar 2017 #32
So what book are they pointing to in the writing of those documents? Lordquinton Mar 2017 #33
I am not Monroe or Carter. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #37
So you can't support your claims? Lordquinton Mar 2017 #43
If you are familiar with the Monroe and Carter Doctrines, guillaumeb Mar 2017 #53
Ok but... Lordquinton Mar 2017 #63
I'm pretty familiar with it. Act_of_Reparation Mar 2017 #72
And in an atheistic society like Russia or China, guillaumeb Mar 2017 #78
Russia is an "atheistic society"? Act_of_Reparation Mar 2017 #83
Thank you for your response. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #84
That's a fairly audacious deployment of snark given how egregiously wrong you are. Act_of_Reparation Mar 2017 #99
[ Citation Required ] AtheistCrusader Mar 2017 #103
[ Clarification of meaning required ] guillaumeb Mar 2017 #106
Please provide an example of nationalism being a 'good thing'. AtheistCrusader Mar 2017 #110
I leave that to each individual. eom guillaumeb Mar 2017 #117
But you made a claim... and you refuse to support it? AtheistCrusader Mar 2017 #140
If you insist, guillaumeb Mar 2017 #141
MIGHT be an example of nationalism. Not all soldiers do so. AtheistCrusader Mar 2017 #146
Ohh..ohh...May I play?... NeoGreen Mar 2017 #120
Nicey done. AtheistCrusader Mar 2017 #139
Thanks, and classifying people as the 'other' also works for... NeoGreen Mar 2017 #150
Why isn't slavery forbidden in the ten commandments? beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #19
Proving that people can quote excerpts from the Old Testament. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #27
That is actually not what was said Lordquinton Mar 2017 #35
But it was a point that I wished to make. eom guillaumeb Mar 2017 #38
You wanted to make an unrelated point? Lordquinton Mar 2017 #44
Straw man. Please show me where I discussed and/or determined their motivation. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #47
I make no such claims. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #55
False equivalency. There is no holy book instructing atheists to enslave, torture and murder people. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #59
If any wish to whitewash history here I will join you. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #60
And I focus on religion's victims because they're often ignored when people discuss the good news. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #64
Very true. eom guillaumeb Mar 2017 #67
Those who decry harsh religious beliefs always need to look closer to home. gordianot Mar 2017 #34
Indeed. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #48
Correct gordianot Mar 2017 #49
One of those so called bathroom bills just failed in Tennessee. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #50
For the most part religion has been a positive force in my life. hrmjustin Mar 2017 #21
Mine also. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #28
The good news, as you say, is when that faith Htom Sirveaux Mar 2017 #23
True. Very true. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #29
All faith is logically arrogance Bretton Garcia Mar 2017 #24
Faith is about belief. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #30
or is it about suspending disbelief JenniferJuniper Mar 2017 #39
Or is it.......... guillaumeb Mar 2017 #40
It's not just believing in something that cannot be "proven" JenniferJuniper Mar 2017 #41
And that huge difference in our viewpoints is understood. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #42
We were often told to believe. And not to ask for proofs Bretton Garcia Mar 2017 #69
Metaphoric lobotomies? guillaumeb Mar 2017 #70
Jesuit schools ARE better than Catechism class. Bretton Garcia Mar 2017 #73
The last shall be first: guillaumeb Mar 2017 #79
In that case? Bretton Garcia Mar 2017 #100
Going back to scientific illiteracy: guillaumeb Mar 2017 #104
Paul and Jesus twisted the Old Testament into spiritual metaphors Bretton Garcia Mar 2017 #148
Consider the circumstances. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #153
But? These hells were real. Physical. Bretton Garcia Apr 2017 #157
But the vision of what constitutes hell is changeable. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #159
But the notion of a miserable place is core? Bretton Garcia Apr 2017 #160
The physical misery is mainly metaphorical. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #161
To your mind, did God create anything physical at all? Bretton Garcia Apr 2017 #162
The Creator created. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #163
In my reading, "hell" is short for "sheol." Which stood for the underground. Bretton Garcia Apr 2017 #164
Interersting questions. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #168
Where is your evidence for that statement? trotsky Apr 2017 #166
I was asked what my view was. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #169
You made it as a statement of fact, when it is absolutely not. trotsky Apr 2017 #171
In an opinion piece, one can expect to read opinions. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #172
Awesome. another quote for me to clip and save. trotsky Apr 2017 #173
Good news? Religion has been the cause of murder, torture, wars, oppression The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2017 #51
Yeah, along with greed, anger, jealousy and megalomania.. whathehell Mar 2017 #52
An excellent answer. eom guillaumeb Mar 2017 #56
This message was self-deleted by its author ymetca Mar 2017 #62
There is oppression being committed by the nominally atheistic rulers in Russia. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #68
False equivalency. They may BE atheists but they don't do it in the name of atheism. AtheistCrusader Mar 2017 #71
What can you know of their actual motivation? guillaumeb Mar 2017 #80
Two reasons. AtheistCrusader Mar 2017 #86
Perhaps they hide their motivation. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #89
Well, I'm not a mind reader, but I see no reason to think, for the additional reasons I outlined, AtheistCrusader Mar 2017 #92
Wait. What? Act_of_Reparation Mar 2017 #75
Good point. I assumed he was referring to the Soviet era. AtheistCrusader Mar 2017 #87
You mean oppression carried out by the Orthodox rulers Lordquinton Mar 2017 #76
You should keep up - Putin and the ROC are responsible for oppressing lgbt people in Russia. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #115
From your source: guillaumeb Mar 2017 #118
Ah the return of the No True Scotsman. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #121
The article you posted proves nothing of the sort. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #124
It's proof that religious leaders are responsible for anti-lgbt discrimination in Russia. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #126
Clearly these videos are proof guillaumeb Mar 2017 #127
Does the Pope go to interfaith services claiming to be a devout Jew or Muslim? Act_of_Reparation Mar 2017 #130
No they're proof that both men pray and accept communion just like other theists. beam me up scottie Mar 2017 #131
On balance... Snackshack Mar 2017 #65
Would I rather live in a secular country edhopper Mar 2017 #74
"We hold these truths to be self evident....." guillaumeb Mar 2017 #81
Yes, it always has been edhopper Mar 2017 #85
I believe that there is much distance between ideal and practice. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #88
And do you think any country edhopper Mar 2017 #90
Any type of theocracy would not be my preferred country. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #91
So whether edhopper Mar 2017 #93
Good and evil both exist in the actions of people. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #94
and the gods edhopper Mar 2017 #95
Perhaps the Creator feels that free will is what is meant by guillaumeb Mar 2017 #96
I am told edhopper Mar 2017 #97
I certainly cannot. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #98
Religion can be a force for great good radical noodle Mar 2017 #77
I agree. Nuance is appreciated. eom guillaumeb Mar 2017 #82
The only time religion is good is when BigRig Mar 2017 #129
I disagree, but welcome to DU. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #133
Does the following reflect your sentiment?... NeoGreen Mar 2017 #142
Close BigRig Mar 2017 #147
Men are at the forefront of the "pissing-while-standing"-movement. DetlefK Mar 2017 #151
But who decides what is considered more influential? eom guillaumeb Mar 2017 #154
One doesn't really need to "search" for bad things religious people do. trotsky Apr 2017 #165
Exactly what I AM doing. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #167
You're doing part of it. trotsky Apr 2017 #170
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»March 25 good news: 84 pe...»Reply #152