Anti-theistic strawmen?

What's atheism got to do with nationalism?

Then certainly, there are all kinds of things in the world, like dogmatic idealism, nationalism etc. which cause strife, and are often described as evil. Dawkins is including religion amongst them.His point needs to be made, as unlike the others, religion is often described as "spiritual" or "good". Considering its historical record, this is strange.

I think that what Mod really wants to discuss in the thread is that people have accused Dawkins and other anti-theists of arguing against a strawman version of religion. And the likes of Dawkins see the problem as being inherent in religion itself.Isn't basing views on "faith" automatically an abdication of reason, and disrespect for evidence?Look at your own literalist brethren whom we see on this site, and some of the completely irrational views that they come up with.He's saying to people like you that the promotion of the "faith comes first" attitude will automatically result in people like them.Time and time again you see the attitude "my faith is as good as yours, evolutionist" on this forum.But you know as well as I that the "evolutionists" on this site have a mixture of philosophies, and they only support the ToE on the basis of evidence. (We don't get to heaven for it, do we).So is Dawkins' view of religion a strawman?

Religions, the Abrahamic ones in particular. They are presented as being true, and you're supposed to have faith in their truths. And not only that, they're not supposed to be the tenth most important thing in your life. They're supposed to be the central foundation, the most important thing. Religious faith, certainly. Most people who generally accept evolutionary theory could easily comprehend it if they bothered looking at the science, but most non-scientists don't bother too much with science. As for not liking religion, some evolutionists are religious, some of them are indifferent to religion, some are non-religious, and some are anti-religious.In this country, most people are indifferent to religion most of the time I don't know if he's ever used that phrase, but is that really the essence of what Dawkins is saying? Both are equally easy to say. Where you part company from Dawkins is that he thinks religions are anything but harmless ideas. But some religious people have suggested that he is not arguing against religion, but against a strawman version of it.Don't you think that the idea of a God who might order the persecution of idol worshippers might be a harmful idea to people whose religions happen to involve a lot of statues? Millions of people on the Indian subcontinent might have led longer and more peaceful lives if such a jealous God had never been invented, and the Islamic version of it hadn't come their way.If a religion, any religion, claims to be the true religion of the true God, don't you think its followers should be asked to show evidence for such a grand claim?If philosophers claim the truth, they are asked to explain why.If scientists claim truths, they are asked to show evidence.Religion, apparently, is exempt from all this.So Dawkins sees religion itself as harmful, not just as a thing that can be corrupted by bad people.But is his view of religion the real religion, or a strawman, the topic wonders.

The conquistadors, by some estimates, accounted for a quarter of the central and south American population of the time, including some complete genocides in the Caribbean. All those killed were, of course, heathens.Islam's eastward push into the Indian subcontinent could've accounted for tens of millions of deaths over the last thousand years. The initial burst of Islam westward through North Africa and into Spain was all by rapid conquest with many battles, as well.Then lets not forget the split in the church in northern Europe. The death toll in Catholic/Protestant conflict alone well exceeding your estimates for the crusades and the inquisition.Hitler, as Crashfrog points out, was one of yours, although Catholic in background, not Lutheran. And, after so many centuries, there would not have been such a thing as Jews and non-Jews in Europe without religion, as it was religion that kept them separate.Whatever the numbers, you realise that in comparing Christianity to the tyrants you list, you are agreeing with Dawkins.Those tyrants are not described as spiritual, Holy, or good, as religion so often is. The likes of Dawkins are trying to take the blinkers from people's eyes.Religious conflict has been a massive killer throughout history, and it's still killing today.People in the "old world" were perhaps more aware of this than Americans, because the U.S. had not seen religion in action until September 11th.Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Ignorance helps them (the slimy undead) on their way, and religions thrive on ignorance, and perpetuate it, as you can see every day in these threads.Weapons against the undead are free speech, free thought, political pluralism, and public access to information (universal literacy, for example).A society cannot be made non-religious, it can only become so voluntarily. Western countries are in the process of doing this, and those furthest along the road, like the Scandinavian Countries, are highly successful societies. The slimy, undead creatures could have been successful there in the first half of the 20th century, but it's very unlikely now.The U.S. is the most religious of the western countries, and probably the most prone to being taken over by the undead. If they do take over, and some might suggest they're half-way there, the platform will certainly be religion.I don't think we'll see an end-timer president sitting on top of the world's largest collection of weapons of mass destruction, but it's not impossible.Religion can be dangerous.Further up the thread, I emphasised that it is the Abrahamic religions that Dawkins really goes on about. From where you're sitting, religion looks a lot less bigoted and dangerous, because it is. I've travelled quite extensively in the east, and the liberal promiscuous way that religions and philosophies intertwine is refreshing.I've also been to the "Holy Land". No promiscuity there.I can't speak for Crash, but I agree with you that it's best to restrict the use of the word religion to its commonest meaning in this thread for practical purposes. He could have used "religion substitutes" with justification, though. It's important, as the west loses its traditional religions, that these don't take over, but they show no signs of doing so in Western Europe.And here's the interesting thing. When Nazi-ism and Stalinism took over, it was when and where the masses were still very much followers of their traditional religions. Non-belief was confined to a minority, and general ignorance was pretty widespread.Edited by bluegenes, : bloody apostrophes

All true. I should've said "conservative Christian Americans", who would only really have noticed the early WTC attack, not the Christian stuff. I was replying to nemesis, remember, who doesn't notice much of anything.

You mean, perhaps, that we never reached the adult understanding of theism shown by the adult theists we read on this website?Or, perhaps, the adult understanding of theism shown by the Pope when he tells Africans not to use condoms?Perhaps a non-theist is someone who does have an adult understanding of theism.

Perhaps a diversionary thread will help, so I've proposed a Hitler one, and perhaps it could be promoted (hint, hint).On topic, I don't really see anyone making a good case for Dawkins' view of religion being a strawman version.We need someone to explain exactly what the sophisticated adult understanding of God that he's supposed to be missing actually is.The "Root of all Evil" programmes were deliberately aimed at a broad audience on a major national U.K. TV channel. If Dawkins wanted to have complex "highbrow" discussions about God with theologians, he could've stayed amongst the dreaming spires of Oxford and done so (he probably has, at some point).As such people only represent a microscopic proportion of the world's religious, perhaps Dawkins is right in seeing the Gods and religions of the masses as being much more important.

Theism is belief in a God or Gods, not about.You're using simple definitions of atheism and agnosticism here, while insisting on the inclusion of broad and complex definitions of God elsewhere on the thread.Babies, agnostics and pantheists are all weak atheists. So is someone who's grown up in a culture that has no concept of a God or Gods, and has never heard of such ideas.Strong agnostics do have beliefs about Gods (to further complicate things!).On the topic, Dawkins is not describing people who use the word God to denote something that does not literally exist as being delusional. Neither is he describing those who use the word God as a three letter abbreviation for "the universe" as delusional.He's talking about the majority of theists.As he makes this clear, and he is definitely in tune with the most common usage of the word God, then I don't think he's arguing against a strawman version of religion. "God" is an intelligent, existent entity in his book's title.From what I can guess about your beliefs, reading this thread, I'm sure Dawkins wouldn't consider you delusional in relation to God.

You supplied a definition of "a theology" by Crashfrog. ("a theology is a belief about Gods"). No you didn't. You brought in the word theism, which, in a brief Crashfrog style definition, would be "a belief in Gods or a God", not about them. The need for accuracy, indeed. Shouldn't someone putting forward the idea that there are such things as "adult" religious views or beliefs know the difference between "a theology" and "theism"?

Here, you recommend the dictionary for the purposes of this thread.So, the Online Dictionary gives us:re·li·gion /rld’n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
”Idiom9. get religion, Informal. a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.Then, in the post I'm replying to:

quote:

---

JavaMan: The analogy with art doesn't really help.

---

That's nowhere near any of the definitions above. But Crashfrog could fairly easily argue for Marxism to be included under definition 2.On the topic: If critics are going to argue that Dawkins is attacking a strawman version of religion by substituting things like literature, pictures, architecture, and the ideas these things convey for the common use of the word religion, then I think that the "strawman" accusation should really be going the other way.Religions use all the arts of course, as they use other things, like ritual.But "religion is art"? No. Not by any definition.I'd recommend that "adult theologians" should stick to your own advice, and go by the dictionary. It can save confusion.