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
Religion
In reply to the discussion: March 25 good news: 84 percent of the world population has faith........ [View all]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.
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"
. 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

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
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
173 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

March 25 good news: 84 percent of the world population has faith........ [View all]
guillaumeb
Mar 2017
OP
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
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
Except religious abolitionists went against their own holy book when they opposed slavery.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2017
#18
If that was such an important concept why did so many Christians support slavery?
beam me up scottie
Mar 2017
#57
Yes - but again said atheists aren't citing a holy book to support those positions.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2017
#61
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
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
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
The point is that people justify what they do by saying that they are following a code of behavior.
guillaumeb
Mar 2017
#26
That's a fairly audacious deployment of snark given how egregiously wrong you are.
Act_of_Reparation
Mar 2017
#99
Straw man. Please show me where I discussed and/or determined their motivation.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2017
#47
False equivalency. There is no holy book instructing atheists to enslave, torture and murder people.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2017
#59
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
In my reading, "hell" is short for "sheol." Which stood for the underground.
Bretton Garcia
Apr 2017
#164
Good news? Religion has been the cause of murder, torture, wars, oppression
The Velveteen Ocelot
Mar 2017
#51
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
Well, I'm not a mind reader, but I see no reason to think, for the additional reasons I outlined,
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2017
#92
You should keep up - Putin and the ROC are responsible for oppressing lgbt people in Russia.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2017
#115
It's proof that religious leaders are responsible for anti-lgbt discrimination in Russia.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2017
#126
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