Cy thread – on dogmaticism, religious indoctrination, and politicized religion

Had a good feeling it would’ve been caught by akismet (whoops, I’ve been calling it azkimet) and, most likely, not undeleted by Vance. Thread has been continued here.

It is not needful for me to defend my unbelief in a deity. It is up to the theists to defend their belief in a deity. They do this to their own satisfaction but not to mine.

This is dogmaticism at its finest. I hope you recognize that, and are secretly joking.

My state is the default state which we all have at birth.

Meaning… innocence? Tell me with a straight face that you’ve never lied, cheated, stole, became illegitimately angry, cursed, malicious, or vengeful towards another person and I’ll think about it.

If some theists see merit in acquiring wealth, there is hope for them yet.

So you believe that prosperity/materialism is a reason for/meaning of life. I’m sure you’ve heard of the colloquialism, “Money is the root of all evil”…

As to rationalism and empiricism, these are entirely good things. I would need them fully developed if I were a scientist observing and experimenting.

I’m glad you see them as “good”, seeing that these are some of the building blocks by which we are able to have a coherent discourse.

I will have to manage with the small amount I have.

Are you talking about money or rationalism/empiricism?

I have concluded that the claim that a guy in the sky made matter (forming it into a cosmos would be easy after that) was a baseless fantasy. It seems obvious once one has gone through the struggle of recognising the faulty belief for what it is.

You’re an anonymous thought entity in a disembodied medium of communication. I don’t grasp how you can say this with a straight face.

But theists pile atop their fantasy a vast wobbly superstructure of dogma…

“[W]obbly superstructure of dogma”…? Hardly. Sufficed to say that you’ve yet an ounce of rationale to offer in support of your position (aside from a questionable bit of empiricism) to date.

…to control the lives of those accepting the fantasy,…

To an extent, yes – there is clear evidence of manipulative intent, whether it be ranging from the outset of Christianity to the church of the Weimar era, but doesn’t that speak as much about the nature of the people (for a contemporary example, take a look here) as much as those doing the manipulation? (This is why democracy is fundamentally flawed and love is the ultimate law).

…and arrange the premature death of any who are free of it.

I wouldn’t know of any offhand examples (Google: murdered atheists religion). First degree murder by reason of religious affiliation (or lack thereof). Would you mind giving some?


11 thoughts on “Cy thread – on dogmaticism, religious indoctrination, and politicized religion

  1. Hmm… I’m thinking about removing this comment, “Islam”, simply because it’s a shameless plug for your own website without even the attempt to contribute to discussion. Normally, this is called “spam”, and to that end, is a more overt form of it.

    Know that by this, you do yoursel(ves) and your religion a disservice.

  2. For the sake of posterity, what is [your] opinion on this article?

    Sheik’s sexist comments create storm
    October 26, 2006 – 8:39AM

    A senior Muslim cleric is facing a storm of criticism and has been urged to leave the country after saying immodestly dressed women provoke sexual attacks.

    Australian Mufti Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali has enraged Muslim women and the wider community by comparing women to meat left out in the street that only has itself to blame if eaten by animals.

    Islamic community leaders quickly moved to distance themselves from the comments, reported in The Australian newspaper but which were made during a Ramadan sermon to 500 worshippers in Sydney last month.

    “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it…whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat,” the sheik told the congregation.

    “The uncovered meat is the problem.

    “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (Islamic headdress), no problem would have occurred.”

    Sheik Alhilali also spoke of women who “sway suggestively” and wear immodest dress, appearing to suggest rapists are not entirely to blame.

    President of the Islamic Friendship Council of Australia, Keysar Trad, said the sheik’s comments had been misrepresented, although he admitted his analogies could have been better.

    “From what I understand, he was talking about the context of encouraging people to abstinence before getting married,” Mr Trad said.

    “His references to exposed meat etc was a very poor example that was meant to be a reference to both men and women, he wasn’t talking about Islamic dress, he wasn’t talking about rape.”

    However a former member of the federal government’s Muslim Advisory board, Iktimal Hage-Ali, said she had listened to a recording of Sheik Alhilali’s speech and believed he should be stripped of his position.

    “I was just flabbergasted,” she told ABC radio.

    The Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria said Sheik Alhilali’s views were at odds with most mainstream Australian Muslims.

    “These unacceptable comments … do not reflect the values of ethnic communities or of many mainstream Australian Muslims,” said council chairman Phong Nguyen said.

    Waleed Aly, from the Islamic Council of Victoria, predicted a backlash against Muslims, saying: “I am expecting a deluge of hate mail. I am expecting people to get abused in the street and get abused at work.”

    Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward believes the comments are an incitement to crime.

    “Young Muslim men who now rape women can cite this in court, can quote this man … their leader in court,” she told the Nine Network.

    She wants him to go, but did not make clear whether she wanted to him to leave the country or step down as a leader of the Islamic community.

    “It’s time we stopped just saying he should apologise. It is time the Islamic community did more then say they were horrified. I think it is time he left,” Ms Goward said.

    Victorian Liberal backbencher Sophie Mirabella wants the sheik to consider moving back to the Middle East.

    “I have a message for Sheik Alhilali: This is Australia, not Iran, and violence and degradation of women is not acceptable,” she said.

    More senior members of government were also scathing.

    “Certainly I think if a religious leader in the Catholic Church or the Anglican Church or in Judaism was to make these sorts of statements, they would be getting a very severe rap over the knuckles, at the very least,” Health Minister Tony Abbott told the Nine Network.

    “He’s wrong. He should be reprimanded and it’s up to ordinary, decent Australians to make it clear that he is wrong.”

    Treasurer Peter Costello urged other Muslims to pull the sheik into line.

    “I hope that the moderate Muslim leaders will speak out today and condemn these comments,” he told the Seven Network.”

    Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said the sheik’s comments were offensive and should be corrected by the Islamic community.

    NSW Premier Morris Iemma says the sheik does not have a good track record on making statements about women.

    Mr Iemma said Sheik Alhilali had made such comments before.

    “He doesn’t have a flash record as far as these sorts of statements and what’s in the paper this morning is offensive and outrageous and ought to be condemned,” Mr Iemma told reporters.

    “To in some way suggest that you can justify sexual attacks on women on the basis of how they might walk or dress is outrageous.”

    © 2006 AAP

  3. I am surprised at the number of arguments the host makes by mere assertion – as here, calling a default position of skepticism “dogmatic”. I am also surprised at the number of times weak and, frankly, tired arguments are presented as if they are novel. In this case, the implied argument seems to be that demanding extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims is somehow dogmatic. If the pretense here is to have a rational discussion, in which the basic tools of reason are accepted as a common ground for discourse, then the onus is logically on those who claim existence of a super-natural phenomenon, whether it happens to be the culturally popular “god” or the culturally unpopular “invisible pink unicorn”, to substantiate that claim.

    Choosing not to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence is not, in fact, dogmatic at all, it is the precise opposite – pragmatic. It is more practical and useful to go through life not believing that one can float off a tall building rather than, as empirically demonstrated, one will fall to one’s death.

    Once again, we find a believer who appropriates the language of science and reason for disingenuous purposes, not actually accepting the premises that make the scientific method and critical thinking demonstrably effective.

    I have no problems with honest theists who say, “I believe because I feel it is right”, and who brook no rational argument; I have tremendous problem with dishonest rhetoricians who pretend to respect logic and reason yet ultimately reject, a priori, the application of same to matters of belief.

    Which is a long-winded way of saying that, in my opinion, having reviewed your site thus far, you are operating under false premises.

  4. “rationalist”,

    This post just serves to underscore your own dogmatic position that all theists lack any rationale for belief whatsoever. I think I’ve demonstrated from a number of threads here that the theistic position doesn’t have to be based on empiricism alone.

    You do a couple of things to dramatically weaken your own argument:
    1. Leave no contact information – do you really want a discussion, or choose to assert the “sceptic” position ad nauseum? Seems like the latter
    2. Make claims of “weak” and “tired” arguments without pointing them out, creating a straw man.
    3. Default back to the “burden of proof” argument while totally ignoring the rationalist proof I gave or the rationale behind any of the threads.
    4. Indirectly accuse me of disingenuousness and being a “rhetorician” while, again, failing to delineate

    Moreover, as far as your reference to this post is concerned: Cy has, through lack of desire for discussion, has demonstrated a level of dogmaticism which I seek and encourage others to avoid. Insofar as your post is concerned, you do the same.

    If you’d like to engage in a discussion/debate about any of the subject matter/posts on this site, I invite you to post in response, with examples cited, anywhere. I’ll be glad to engage in a civil discussion.

  5. What about the possibility of pulling out of Iraq, letting Iran invade and lose resources fighting their own kind,
    and then come in and mop up the dregs?

  6. Eh? That’s kind of an off-topic comment, but I’ll take a jab at it anyway – I personally wouldn’t advocate doing that, for obvious reasons. We should be in there helping them rebuild their country, not “keep the peace.” That model is democratically flawed enough as it is.

  7. Nothing seems to be easier than seeing someone whom you can help but not helping.
    I suggest we start giving it a try. Give love to the ones that need it.
    God will appreciate it.

  8. I agree – not only in the US, but all over we’re going to need to love one another in order to get through these hard times. Jesus can show you how in practical (and possibly impractical) ways.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s