Bohemian's Waterfall
Right, and I actually raised a similar objection, though it's buried in the replies so most probably haven't seen it. And I don't know if you noticed, but there is also an implied premise that many of the other debaters here have missed, and it took me a little while to find it.
The implied premise is: "God is a being that can Communicate"
Without this premises his argument doesn't work, and it's the easiest premise to dispute.
If the premise is false, the argument is invalid
No, not quite.
INVALID ARGUMENT- A deductive argument where the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises
VALID ARGUMENT- A deductive argument where the conclusion necessarily follows from premises
SOUND ARGUMENT- An argument that is both Valid and has all true premises.
UNSOUND ARGUMENT- An argument with false premises.
1. That beings that do exist are worshiped.
2. That a being that does not exist cannot be worshiped
3. That god is a term especially appropriate to what's going on during worship
Premise #2 is false. You can in fact worship something that does not exist. Quetzalcoatl I think most would agree is a non-existent being, and also a worshiped being.
I've got controversial opinions about prayer too.
And what are those? Should I expect personal anecdotes?
If you want to make a valid argument it would have to look more like this:
1. God is an unwaveringly trusted being
2. only beings that can communicate are beings that are unwaveringly trusted
3. Non-existent beings are not beings that can communicate
4. God is a being that can communicate
5. ergo, God is not a non-existent being
.
.
.
.
The premise/conclusion in italics are those that you left out, but were implied by your argument. This is a valid argument form, but most atheists would contend premise #4, and possibly premise #1.
People who are extremely trusted.
So your argument is only that trusted people exist, how is this a proof of God?
If you are admitting that people communicate with it, you are admitting that "it" exists.
Talking to God is not difficult, getting him to talk back.....now, that's the tricky part.
If these organizations do not want to follow these guidelines, then they don't have to receive government assistance. If they receive government assistance then they have to conform to the guidelines, especially when contraceptives have a proven health benefit.
If they want to maintain their anti-contraceptive stance, by all means go private.
In lieu of letting each response become increasingly verbose, I'm going to try and identify what I see as being your overall contention here. It seems to me, your primary contention with anti-religious rhetoric is that religion is too broad and not clearly defined. Am I correct?
To criticize beliefs or practices common to many religions, may be characterized as anti-religious even if it doesn't use the term "religion" in the actual argument. So simply because the term "Religion" is broad does not necessarily entail that the argument against it, is. If I were to argue that prayer is ineffectual, this would be a specific complaint about a practice common to many religions. If I were to make other specific complaints that span many faiths, then I could make a compelling case.
You are upset at what you see as people generalizing about all religion, but not all anti-religious arguments generalize and so you are making a generalization about all anti-religious arguments. You are then guilty of the same thing.
Anti-Anti-religious Rhetoric is lame.
Your ancillary argument seems to be that anti-religious speech is not going to change the minds of the already religious. It doesn't have to. No matter how zealously or ardently a group holds a belief, those people will eventually die, and if they don't convince a sufficient number of people to accept that belief as their own, 'said belief will die out. Potential believers may be persuaded by a competing view. Therefore it is not necessary to convince believers in order to make an impact.
I look forward to your response.
I am saddened and it causes me to wonder who could have harmed them in some way, preventing them from believing in the one, true God
Why do you assume that being harmed is a prerequisite for disbelief in your God? Is it not possible to disbelieve for reasons amenable to logic and/or reason?
I'm not telling you what you must or must not do.
Fair enough. However you are saying what must be done to not be considered lame.
I'm telling you that it's almost completely worthless to classify people as religious and non-religious.
Why is that, because there is some gray area? Unfortunately not everything is black and white, that being the case it is still useful to understand the difference between the religious and the non-religious .
I'm telling you that organizations classified as secular are no less prone to, and active at committing atrocities
I would beg to differ. The idea of basic human rights strongly correlates with the rise of secularism.
However if by "secular" you mean profane, then I might agree.
"What organization am I a member of, and what role does it play in the causing of problems?", I argue, is a drastically more wise approach
If one happens to already belong to such an organization, but that one doesn't belong I don't think should prevent them from offering criticism.
than thinking that our worst problems arise from a poor deluded group separate of course from the exemplarily virtuous one we ourselves belong to.
This is a bit of a cartoonish characterization.
Read your question closely and pay attention to how you are using the word religion. Are you talking about a specific organization? No. You are talking about religion in general.
Would it be helpful if I said 'Revealed Religion' or 'Organized religion'?
If you belong to an organization or institution that is misguided, ill-informed, corrupt, and regularly violates basic human rights, simply declaring that you "don't belong" is an attractive cop out
So protesting the immoral and unjust actions of an organization by leaving it is a 'cop out' then is it?
But that is not the issue here is it? I don't belong to any religious organization, so your argument is that I should just Shut Up, and I am not going to do that.
I spot a fallacy of equivocation here.
How so?
What of "secular" organizations, who are super efficient at indoctrinating impressionable youth to believe that a great deal of killing is the only way to a better world?
Before we continue, do you belong to these secular organizations?
It's foolish to ignore the relationship between religion and government.
I have never said that people shouldn't criticize government. So this is irrelevant.
I'm saying that if you want your speech to matter, you ought to be concerned with your audience understanding you. If you just want to whine, join the crowd.
So all anti-religious speech is unconcerned with the audience?
Ok. Name one.
Christopher Hitchens. He criticized religions for suppressing women's rights.
And who did they think the worst offenders were?
The clergy.
Being against religion is just as naive as being against government.
I don't find anything inherently naive about either.
How many different ways do I have to word it for you to get my point?
I get your point, it's just a bad point.
Which religions?
It depends on who is the one that is giving it special treatment. In the case of Ireland, it doesn't distinguish between religions. All are granted special treatment.
That is an example of legislation meant to limit free speech. Free speech has legal limits!
And that limit in Ireland is causing outrage among a sufficient number of a religious community. Certainly Galileo caused outrage within the Catholic Church.
What type of organizations are more active in the suppressing of free speech, governmental or religious?
Often it is Government acting on behalf of religious sensibilities, even so when Government is suppressing freedom of speech I will be the first to criticize that as well, so your point is moot.
You already have the support of like minded people.
Have you ever heard of a silent majority? Just because people hold a certain view does not mean they express it or actively promote it.
And of those who are on-the-fence or undecided, you are promoting that they reject as a whole this ambiguously defined "religion".
The non-religious are the fastest growing group in the country. That you think it is too "ambiguous" in no way means the message hasn't been successful. So once again, your point is moot.
Wanting to discuss how we can improve is admirable, wanting to discuss how they should improve is totally lame.
So I must join the religion I wish to criticize? I find this to be utterly absurd. I must not be a communist to criticize Communism, I must not belong to the Democrat/Republican parties to criticize them, I must not belong to the Aryan Nation to criticize it, etc.
So tell me then why should I treat religion any different? Why should I give religion special consideration, that I do not afford to other organization or institutions that I consider to be misguided, ill-informed, or corrupt? If my criticisms were sincere then why would I belong to such an organization or institution?
Why should religion be granted a special treatment? I Rebuke your insistence that I should limit my freedom of speech. If I see a problem, then I am going to say something. You can dislike it all you want, you can call it lame but you are a fool.
I live under the constant threat of subjugation by ostensibly secular authorities that consider my basic human rights subject to their dogmatic doctrine "laws". Here in the US you can be kidnapped away from your family and imprisoned for driving without permission from "non-religious" authorities. What happens to you and your family while in jail...well that's your problem.
What government authorities do or do not do is irrelevant to this discussion. Stop trying to deflect the issue at hand.
Frankly I'd rather be whipped than lose my house, job, and car all in one fell swoop.
False Dichotomy.
Being whipped doesn't preclude losing your home or job. This is a fallacious argument.
Never mind that it doesn't make any sense to be against religion.
So then we should limit our free speech to what makes sense to you?
A sensible approach would be to point out what acts are unjust, and who are the worst offenders.
Many anti-religious folks have done precisely that. That some anti-religion advocates don't, does not make all anti-religious rhetoric Lame.
Please expand on that.
On what? That religion is given special treatment? Do you deny that it is?
Here is a good example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
With religion, I argue, the effective criticism comes from within.
Of course I don't expect to change the hearts and minds of the ardently religious, that is not the point. I can rally support from like minded people, and perhaps sway those who are on-the-fence or undecided. What is lame about that? Or is it lame merely because you disagree with it?
I don't see anything lame about criticizing religious practices that violate basic human rights. And I don't really care what you or anyone else has to say about it, until you are the one being subjugated. I also don't like being told what I can or cannot talk about, if your religion is so fucked up that a women gets whipped for driving, I'll be damned if someone tells me I'm not supposed to say anything.
http://slumz.boxden.com/f610/
Where did this false notion come from that people, who think they have some inherent right not to be offended. No such right exists. Never has. If you are going to inject your beliefs into a real world forum, expect to be criticized even made fun of. If your beliefs are so fragile that they cannot withstand criticism, then maybe you need to find new beliefs. Instead of countering criticism, or changing behavior, some people think it's appropriate to censor opinions they don't agree with. This is what I object to.
Anti-religion is prevalent now, especially on the internet, because religion has been coddled for too long, given special treatment, and there are certainly a lot of things to be critical about.
I will tolerate religious beliefs, but I am under no obligation to respect them. Respect must be earned.
If this doesn't read like a spaceship landing on top of Mt. Sinai, I don't know what does
I would say nothing does.
Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently.
Sounds more like a volcano eruption.
What if we are the product of one of those advanced civilizations? Would that make them Gods to us?
Are you saying you think this actually happened, that extraterrestrials are the basis of all world religions, or is this just a hypothetical question?
