The Courtier's Reply

GLORIOUSLeader

GOSH DANGIT I KNOW. 

Bastion

♠ is in the air...

GLORIOUSLeader

But throwing spades into the air isn't very safe at all. 

Gelzo

Can't say spades without AIDS.

Chagen

"Essentially: The Courtier's Reply idea offers no proof that there isn't a super-secret argument for the existence of God known only to theologians; however, it points out that by discounting Dawkins' arguments against the belief in God because he is not a theologian, theologians aren't actually countering anything or even engaging with him intellectually, but rather excluding him from the conversation; you can view this as intellectual bullying"

No, they did not tell Dawkins that he couldn't argue theology because he was not a theist.

They told him to shut the fuck up, stop screaming about how EBUL religion was, get out of his atheist-antitheist circlejerk, look around himself, and see that the majority of christians weren't demonic creatures that only want to cause suffering and misery.

Of course, he just went back to the circlejerm anyway and ignored them completely, so it's not like much changed anyway.

Gelzo

Chagen...

Can you cite your sources?

BonSequitur

I don't even know how to respond to Chagen. He quite clearly doesn't reside in the same universe as the one in which this discussion is taking place.

Gelzo

I'd like to see him try link to a Dawkins quote that supports what he's claiming about him.

PROTIP: Claiming religion is evil =/= claiming religious people are evil.

glennmagusharvey

Wait, "The God Delusion" (a Dawkins book IIRC, right?) is related to the topic of this thread?

Chagen

Not my fault Dawkins makes himself an easy target.

Gelzo: if religion is evil, then logically it should be that all religious people are evil.

Never mind that "religion is evil" is a bullshit statement, given that it isn't a sentient thing. Religion can not be evil. Only its followers can be.

Bob

BonSequitur

But, the entire Courtier's Reply thing is around arguments for the likely nonexistence of God. They have nothing to do with Dawkins' opinion of religion. Do you even know what we're talking about?

Gelzo

Yes, Chagen, strawmen are easy targets.

Chagen

In any case, Dawkins believes that religion is evil.

Which discredits him entirely. Religion cannot be evil. It's a non-tangible thing. It can't be evil. It isn't even sentient.

Only the followers can be evil. They twist the religion. The religion is innocent. Antitheists never get this part, which is why I cannot take them seriously (never mind that morality is subjective).

Calling religion itself evil is about as ridiculous as calling candy evil because people can harm themselves from eating it.

BonSequitur

That's like saying someone's belief in unicorns discredits their opinion about mathematics. That's also not what Dawkins says in any case.

Gelzo

Religion can certainly be considered evil if you believe it causes harm. I'll argue that you could also consider candy an evil.

It's probably best if you don't disregard someone's argument entirely because they're using a given word differently than you.

Chagen

Except Genocide is an action which is used only for the purpose of being evil.

Genocide is a direct action. Religion is a state of being.

Gelzo

Perpetrating the meme of religion is surely an action.

But I don't think this is the best comparison anyway. I would have picked some kind of political movement as an example.

glennmagusharvey

That would be evangelism, not religion itself.

Gelzo

Oh, then is Chagen operating under the assumption that Dawkins thinks it's evil to believe in religion? I'm pretty sure he'd be misguided in assuming that. I'm not sure that's an opinion any party relevant to the discussion holds.

Chagen

Gelzo: Political movements can be evil if they promote evil things.

But religion is just belief. Christianity is just the belief in God. That belief does not drive a person to do anything.

Gelzo

The belief that it is just and you will go to heaven if you kill person X is an idea that originates from religion. I could consider that a motivation to do an evil act.

Chagen

But that was a human made idea. And most mainstream religions don't advocate that anyway.

Gelzo

That was just an extreme example. There are more mainstream beliefs that motivate subtler examples of actions one could object to. I think religion is one of the significant motivations behind protests of gay marriage, which I find morally objectionable. 

Also, you have to concede that at least some religions are human made and not divinely inspired.

Anyway, even if you disagree, at this point can I convince you to admit at this point that it's possible to fairly hold the opinion that a given religion is at least somewhat evil?

Chagen

"Anyway, even if you disagree, at this point can I convince you to admit at this point that it's possible to fairly hold the opinion that a given religion is at least somewhat evil?"

Anything can be evil. Including religion.

But it is a very large and broad statement to call something as massive and fragmented as Christianity evil. I remember reading that in science, there are very few absolutes.

Gelzo

Granted, but if I were to claim that religion is, on a whole, evil, I would assume that you'd think that I meant that the net moral value of religion is negative rather than every single instance and facet of religion being evil.

Sort of like how I can claim... well... can I say Hitler? I can claim Hitler was evil, but I really doubt that every action he performed generated social harm. It's not like those paintings he did were gateways to hell or some shit.

Chagen

"Granted, but if I were to claim that religion is, on a whole, evil, I would assume that you'd think that I meant that the net moral value of religion is negative rather than every single instance and facet of religion being evil"

Yes I would.

But that's a huge and grave statement to make.

(this is far more fun/interesting than drama)

Gelzo

I'm not disputing that it's a big claim, I'm just asserting that it's possible to hold the opinion without being a blithering idiot.

Chagen

Unless you gave some very good evidence for your argument, I would be inclined to not really take you seriously, though.

Gelzo

That's right, Chagen, it's important to back up your opinions with arguments and evidence. This is why Dawkins has written a book on the subject he has strong opinions about.