Anti-theistic strawmen?

are you then willing to defend the idea that atheistic or non-theistic nationalism can't breed the same thing? or that any variety of mobilizing political or social factor couldn't breed the same thing? humans are capable of being polarized and radicalized and those who seek power will utilize this no matter what mobilizing phychology or theology or whatever they choose to use.

nothing. but often, nationalism has a theistic tinge. i was excluding this from my query.

i'm simply saying that his assertion that without religious faith the level of commitment these individuals demonstrate wouldn't happen is indefensible. see, my problem is that i think logically and see that if the religion is being used by the power hungry who have any number of such tools at their disposal, then the problem is the power-hungry and not the tool they choose to abuse.

who's promoting a "faith comes first" attitude? dawkins isn't against "faith comes first," he's against "faith at all." i'm not convinced that most evolutionists can comprehend it. they just don't like religion. i have no idea. i just don't think it's an accurate view of reality. it's really easy to say "the idea of god is evil." it's a little harder to say "there are a few bad people in the world and they abuse more or less harmless ideas to get other people to do bad things, and also people are in general easily corrupted." blaming the religion instead of the people who participate in it, is an excuse to ignore the evils hiding within yourself and that you are capable of the same things and are probably already guilty of some.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

i would agree. but what i'd also say is that even the bible describes that people who are "young in the faith" have a tendency to gravitate twards childish or simplistic ideas. i'd say that those nuances of mature faith are generally lacking from those who worship (for want of a better word) "getting saved" rather than growing in the spirit or whatever you'd like to call it.a large group of christians tend to follow people with "miraculous" conversion stories. these tend to be later in life and start grown men and women off as spiritual babies. because people are crazy enough to think these people's conversions might make them good leaders or advisors, the outside community views them as examples of christianity, and the internal community tends to follow them into folly. it's like children having children and worse.so we have aetheists or other "former christians" whose spiritual experience is that of a child and christian "leaders" whose spiritual experience is that of a child, and altogether we end up with blind people complaining about blind people leading blind people. this is not theology, and it is not religion. it's a pep rally for legalism.

i could be mistaken, but last i heard, his opinion was that moderate theism is just as bad, if not worse than fundamentalism becuase it serves to legitimize faith which legitimizes faith-based thinking. it's like the trojan horse of mental diseases.

because it does not illustrate the full range of theistic thought when it claims to.

i think that depends on who you ask. it seems to me that some think that all of the range is dangerous.

true enough, but the use of this generalization of theism *is* part of the discussion here and part of the particular threads referenced in this sub-discussion.

moderation and wisdom does not require this crap.

i said no such thing. god can be a real being taking action in the universe without being the malevolent beast most christians take him to be. mature theology moves past legalism (read: fundamentalism) into an understanding of who god is and what he does and does not do and what people have said about him and how those things differ. it has nothing to do with "feelings" or "hand-waving". but it may still give more questions than answers.

it isn't. you just have to actually study it with people who've studied it for a long time and not people who are "leik omgz! when wuz you saveed!!!" says you. dawkins is a biologist. he can't possibly refute god with any authority. that's nice.

it's not that he could be an authority on god, but that biologists deal with life and not extra-universal junk. my assertion here is that --aside from anyone's ordinary philosophizing-- no one can refute god.

it isn't. i think it's some rubbish about considering multiple sources and cultural insights and experience rather than charisma and good feelings.

i thought it was really a blatantly obvious part of this whole discussion that no one can disprove god. this is no giant proof, but it is what it is.