Thread: Proving God by Consensus: My Problem with the Religious Right

Why is it open season on Christians? From all the hate and garbage hurled at them by the left (particularly some atheists), one might think Christianity is the only worldwide religion. Far-left talk show hosts on TV earn a fine living bashing Jesus and Christianity, yet they are afraid to touch Mohammed and Islam because they fear for their lives if they do. Christians are safe and easy targets, I guess. (Or maybe the talk show hosts are cowards? Or just plain dumb?)

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

I think this is a straight forward theo-political thesis: the author's argument that the "religious right", in their attempt to validate their own beliefs, are a growing cause of concern, so much so that it's argued things are bordering on critical and need immediate action (undefined action which is suggested but not explained, instead merely regarded as "we must do something before this gets more out of hand").

I see what you're saying, moderan (and what you're saying, if true, borders on brilliance, in my opinion), that it's possible the author is presenting his own argument as a form of satire, thus mocking the narration itself. But I don't think that would fall into the realm of Non-Fiction, would it? Wouldn't that be closer to fiction, as the narrative voice itself would then become a character, and not, as Non-Fiction implies, the actual voice of the author?

Yeah, it would be, if my surmise is correct...the device would then be metafictional. But Thompson's gonzo conceit is of the same breed, and that's marketed and nonfiction except for "Vegas"...anyway the author hasn't yet weighed in. I see people are still trying to cast this as a religious argument despite the placement of the piece indicating the author's sense of context.
Again, that's how I see it, perhaps because that's how I would have cast it.
I do see your initial point though, which is more or less "Occupy the Right".

Living in Greater Manchester I always welcome the religious sorts who come knocking on my front door, they are a breath of fresh air when considered next to who could come knocking. At least they dont post masses of junk mail through our doors, at least they dont masquerade as offering the best deal around then when they get in you have to pay for something else first.

They are straight forward thinkers just looking for other like minded souls and not giving false impressions so to get their foot in the door.

It isn't the job of religions to prove the existence of God, that is God's job and if he hasn't proven himself to you only you can find the reasons for that.

My problem with the religious right is that they are wrong...

Firstly regarding the essay, I'd just like to contribute an observation that it seems as though Jehovah's Witnesses are being lumped into the same category as the religious right. As far as I understand, they claim to be politically neutral, they never endorse political candidates, and it's against their religion to vote. They are guilty of many other things, some of which you mention such as anti-homosexual beliefs, but it's good to be accurate when presenting an argument likely to be attacked.

Originally Posted by ClosetWriter

Those who stand on a soapbox and say there is no God are just as radical as those who knock on a door at 7 AM.

If you were to ask me if I believe in God I would say I hope there is. I am only human, and that disqualifies me from knowing for sure. It also disqualifies the holiest of people along with atheist since both groups are human as well. Personally, I only know what I know, and what I know is: I don’t know. I would like to believe that a just God would understand that.

I'm new to these forums, having first found this website about one day ago, and already I've found the statement made twice, that atheism claims there to be no god. You've presented it in the most reasonable-sounding way I've seen, but it still needs to be answered.

Although there are evangelical atheists who argue that there is no God, atheism does not necessarily involve the claim that there is no God. It doesn't require belief in any scientific theory. It's simply the rejection of belief in God because there is not sufficient reason to believe.

If I claimed that the reason dinosaurs are extinct is because an enormous jellyfish ate them all then evaporated leaving no trace of itself, I could then say, "Well, prove that it's not true". It's up to the person making the claim to provide sufficient reason to believe. There are many atheists who openly say they'd like there to be evidence or some sort of substantial basis for belief in God, but lacking this, they don't believe it's rational to believe. Wishful thinking isn't belief--it's not even agnosticism.

It was more of an endless rant than a story. Just my 2¢. I am not commenting on the substance, I neither found the arguments persuasive nor compelling.

And I mightily resent the manifold ways in which their ambition to, for starters, make a formal theocracy of America—a more than adequate means of certifying their beliefs—is already poisoning the lives of the rest of us.

I’m speaking, of course, of their interference with a woman’s freedom to end a pregnancy and of homosexuals ability to marry one another. etc

So you're happy for Christians to exist, providing they don't practice their faith; or at least areas of their faith which doesn't agree with your own personal viewpoint.
Doesn't that make you demanding 'a universal consensus on the matter' by engaging in a 'quest to conscript us into their immortality project'? Surely that's 'poisoning the lives of the rest of us' with your dogma & decrees.


Btw : I didn't think this was a actual story, but rather somebody telling us his personal opinion.

Aren't argumentative pieces of writing allowed here?

Originally Posted by Cirrocumulus

Aren't argumentative pieces of writing allowed here?

The only question as I see it is whether it's a writing for non-fiction, or a debate opinion piece. I personally felt that the writer was simply stating his own opinion on a topic, which I would have put in the debate section. Of course, whether it's in the correct section is up to forum mods; and they haven't touched it.

And before you reply, no I don't think it changes my own view on it.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

The only question as I see it is whether it's a writing for non-fiction, or a debate opinion piece. I personally felt that the writer was simply stating his own opinion on a topic, which I would have put in the debate section. Of course, whether it's in the correct section is up to forum mods; and they haven't touched it.And before you reply, no I don't think it changes my own view on it.

The statement of one's opinion is surely a valid form of non-fiction writing. It has probably been so for a few thousand years but especially in the modern era; the last 500 or so. Much of what is often termed progress, was begun in this sort of writing. As a valid authorial form, it can be critiqued as can any other piece of writing, without arguing about the validity of the opinion. Given the opinion, is the writing interesting? Gramatically correct? Spelled right? Does the support for the opinion contain logic errors? Are facts marshalled to support the opinion incorrect? A writer wanting this sort of assistance for a piece which might later be, say, submitted as an op-ed piece, would, I should think, properly post it on the non-fiction board or in the workshop. It would then be incumbent on persons replying to respond appropiately. If the author wants to argue the opinion, THEN it should be placed on the debate board. On this critique board, persons unable to respond without arguing the opinion possibly should refrain from any response. There can be, I will readily grant, a fine line between fact checking and arguing, but several responders here have managed to avoid straying over it. pp

Thank you, ppsage. It is difficult to read material which challenges one's worldview. I highly recommend to the author of "Proving God by Consensus" an article I studied as part of my psychology degree, which summarises recent psychological research on (existential) "terror management theory", and presents the results of a series of experiments in which participants read an essay which attacked their cultural worldview. In one experiment for example, nationalistic Canadians read an essay which attacked Canadian values (carefully written to avoid mention of death or death-related ideas), resulting in an increase in death-related thoughts, measured by a word-completion task (e.g. "COFF__" could be completed as either "COFFEE" or "COFFIN"). A similar experiment involving believers of creationism read a pro-evolution essay found similar results. The article is by Jeff Schimel, Joseph Hayes, Todd Williams, and Jesse Jahrig from the University of Alberta, and from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2007, Vol. 92, No. 5, 789-803. The title is: "Is Death Really the Worm at the Core? Converging Evidence that Worldview Threat Increases Death-Thought Accessibilty"

Highly relevant to the piece of writing of this thread by RobertLevin219, but also anyone challenging any worldview of others. There are also some very interesting articles listed in the bibliography, on fascinating & revealing research. At least learn about "terror management theory" and the effects of worldview threat.

Originally Posted by Cirrocumulus

It is difficult to read material which challenges one's worldview.

I'm not Christian, and others here will say I have a hatred of Christianity; so please don't incline this type of blanket statement towards my direction. Thank-you.

Hey Rustgold, it wasn't directed at you. I see that you posted recently, and were maybe waiting for a response. I was just sharing some relevant & important material with the author, RobertLevin219 & anyone else interested.

I did however have the impression that you were Christian. Browsing the forums more recently, I've come across other posts you've made, and can see what you mean. I largely agree with those I've read so far.

My use of the word "difficult" was a lazy choice, possibly giving unintended meaning, and leaves out the rest of the picture (e.g. whether the reader at the same time enjoys their worldview being challenged, or how subtle the "difficulty" is). I made that statement having in mind the robust scientific research I referred to, many times replicated, including experiments testing its generalisability to different populations, so it's safe to assume it more or less applies to all of us. Making "blanket statements" about particular posts wouldn't be right however. I was in particular thinking of the nature of Robert's article itself, and the responses any such author should expect.