Anti-religious fanatics use certain words and phrases in their arguments on these forums. I'm making a little study of the ones most commonly used. Here are some of my finds: Hilarious (as in, not funny at all), fallacy (not to be confused with phallus and relating to any kind of belief that has not been certified as true by Saint Richard Dawkins, sorry that's DR. Richard Dawkins), brainwashing (regarding teaching children right and wrong), psychotic religion (an immovable preoccupation by atheists with the god of the Old Testament as representing ALL religious practice). Please be so good as to also share some terms that you seen used repeatedly. Cheers.
My own favorite and one I coined myself:
It's not necessarily derogatory. In fact, I have had religious people tell me that they think it is a quite accurate description
"Imaginary friend" is another. I always preferred another of my own: "Invisible Pal". Again, that's not necessarily derogatory either.
I use fallacy in any argument where false logic or false syllogism is being put forth.
No. Google false syllogism and logic.
They are literary and rhetorical terms for examples.
I have some in my lit books if you can't find good ones.
I think the reason why I find 'false logic' an awkward phrase is because the argument revolves around one person believing something which is unprovable. It is no good to simply call the person a liar.
One doesn't have to be an Anti-religious fanatic to use certain phrases and words to describe the ridiculous argument being asserted by believers.
Religious beliefs are completely ABSURD.
I'm pretty sure the brainwashing that some people refer to isn't simply about teaching children right and wrong. Certainly teaching kids right and wrong can be done outside of any religion. When I hear people claim that kids are being brainwashed it's usually about telling kids that they are being judged by God, going to heaven or hell depending on how they live their life, gay is a sin etc. I guess if that's teaching children right and wrong for some people then you are right. I just have a different perspective.
But why does it have to be brainwashing? If that is the case then all parenting is a form of brainwashing. We look up to our parents, they have opinions, we take them as gospel until the time when we begin to reason for ourselves. It may be that we come to different conclusions, or not.
The reason I started this thread was that there are certain words which are used specifically in relation to religious people but not for other sort of ideology.
I would simply say that not encouraging your children to think independently is poor parenting.
It is brainwashing when they are telling you something that obviously is incredulous and irrational, but you accept it anyways.
Are you saying that everything parents teach is that way?
The parents were brainwashed themselves into believing religious nonsense, they are just passing it along.
Then, teaching children religious nonsense is poor parenting because it is based entirely on faith in which thinking is prohibited.
And I suppose if you were in charge, you'd ban all religious teaching?
What I'm saying is that a normal parent shares his or her beliefs with their children. Beliefs about racism, for example, or vegetarianism, or a right to bear arms. Are strong opinions neccessarily abuse? If you seem them as abuse coming from one ideology, it must be the case with all ideology.
And yes, brainwashing is abuse.
While I certainly agree that religious indoctrination CAN be abusive, I think we need to tread that ground, very, very carefully.
I'd set the standard for "brainwashing" much, much higher than I would for physical abuse. There is real danger there of a slippery slope that leads to thought police.
In an ideal world, children would get to see all sides. We let our kids go to church and temple with their friends and we talked honestly with them about religion and our non-belief.
But I wouldn't ever want to go down the road of trying to prevent religious indoctrination. I might not like it, but I don't want to see interference.
So a bit like the law in China, you would like to see a system where only secularism could be taught as truly valid?
Where do you get THAT from what I said?
If you mean do I think idiotic creationism should be taught in schools, I absolutely do not.
I'd love to see COMPARATIVE religion taught in schools. That is, a course covering ALL major religions and atheism and agnosticism and even some of the minor religions. I'd like to see kids learn their history, their derivation, what distinguishes them and so on. I think that would help get rid of of a lot of fundamentalism.
No, just the indoctrination of children.
Nonsense, parents don't "share" their beliefs with their children, they tell them to believe it or they will fry for an eternity.
I think you may need to brush up on what exactly entails brainwashing and indoctrination. You don't appear to have a grasp of the subject.
Sky fairy ha ha. I like the tautology. Like there are ground fairies who walk everywhere. There's also spaghetti monster which seems to be an American thing.
I see lots of and other emoticons used to infuriate the religious.
And then there's <the coveted double laughing face> But I got that one once myself, so it isn't reserved for only the religious. Just anyone that some people might think it will elicit a rise out of.
Yes, the derisory face which says 'no words can express the contempt I feel for your opinions right now'.
Ohhhhh I will sooo look forward to your hub on this.
I've seen some other terms from other sites as well.
Some of my favorites are the Bible being referred to as a 'book of fairy tales'.
'rational' and 'reasoning' are almost constantly used as an argument against 'faith'.
I've also seen God referred to as 'an angry kid' who likes to throw temper tantrums. Oh the list goes on.
Since people cannot see beyond their ceiling, they don't want anyone else to either. And when you counter their argument by stating they are attacking you and to quit it, they claim that they were attacked first! I'm like huh? I didn't attack you, you attacked me. And then they say, nooo some other fundamentalist, gun-toting, womanizing, money grubbing fool hurt them.
I still scratch my head sometimes. So I just say, hey man, you need to see a shrink, this has nothing to do with God at all.
Oh yeah, all that. Talking down to an opponent is de rigeour in such conversations. It's really not cricket.
Why should religious people get any more respect than UFO nuts, or the crackpots who think our leaders are all reptiles?
I will absolutely defend your right to practice your religion, no matter how crazy it sounds to me. I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you screaming my lungs out at anyone who tries to interfere with your right.
But I'm not going to *respect* your silly belief. That's asking far too much.
Here's my thing: If you don't bring it up, I'm not going to either. But the minute you do, you are fair game in my book.
It is the person that requires the respect, not the opinions. People always get that wrong.
If you think that I have to respect your religion to respect you. you will always think I am being disrespectful.
Exactly. You should be under no obligation to respect another person's philosophy. But without respect for the other person....where would we be?
Respect is (and should not be) automatic. Courtesy, yes, but respect - real respect and not simple courtesy - is something to be earned.
I disagree. I don't think we should simply be courteous. Courtesy is a skin -deep manner. I think we should train ourselves to automatically respect whoever we encounter and also to try and love them. What a wonderful world if we all did that.
I can respect someone and love them unconditionally, and generally feel that way about all people...
It is possible to respect and love someone and still think they are being <insert adjective here>. Furthermore, I can tell them what I think in no uncertain terms and still love and respect them.
I've loved and respected plenty of ignorant, overzealous, bigotous, judgmental, and downright obnoxious people in my life. I told them when they were being such.
I like 'godsoaked' though. What a brilliant image.
I liked it too. As I said, I may mean it to be derogatory, but you don't have to interpret it as such.
On a different note from the one already brought up, the religious probably don't have a right to call foul on this one. I've noticed a propensity on their part to imply that the nonbeliever is either dense, ignorant or deaf when it comes to spirituality. They tend to turn a blind eye to their own behavior.
There is always another side, and one can't entirely generalise. But there are also those who leap upon a statement with the same vitriolic phrases every time.
I think the problem is that what is deemed vitriolic by one side of the debate is heralded as repartee by the other. Those who want respect for their views must be respectful of other views. This is a difficult concept for the devoutly religious, at times.
One thing I haven't heard religious people say is that non-religious are liars. It seems to be a big part of the argument against belief and is pretty damning.
I don't like that one either, but to them you aren't telling the truth... ergo...
I think wrong or mislead would be a better word, but I'm not sure it would be any less offensive.
but then again, having everything you hold dear in your life being called an abomination isn't real cool either.
Pretty damning? I agree. But, I'd tread lightly with that particular argument. The views of many religious damn the rest of us simply because we disagree. Out of curiosity, what have you been taught is the ultimate fate of the non believer?
We were brought up to believe that if you knew the truth but chose to ignore it, you would be in danger of having a tormented soul in the afterlife. The non-believer gets an easier time, a fact which tends to be the source of much bitter mirth when you're young and rebellious.
That certainly is a horrible ideology to inflict upon children which continues to torment them into adulthood.
Well you seem pretty angry that religious people are avoiding the truth. Whats the difference?
Are you saying you don't know the difference between telling children religious garbage that scares the bejezzus out of them their whole lives or raising them with positive attributes on life?
<--- Is that what you call anger?
So, if you don't scare children, you're not brainwashing them?
If you scare children, you're obviously doing something wrong. That doesn't mean that if you don't scare them it's not brainwashing. It's potentially more sinister even.
I like this one:
"Don't quote at me from the Bible"
so you don't and then
"you're just making that up"
oh, I've just remembered a classic: 'Liars for Jesus'. Dear me, the anger.
Well, both sides have said that I'm not a Christian... Which is pretty awesome.
I tend to use the word zealot a lot. Hypocrite, judgmental, and intolerant too. I bring up "God's referral program" pretty often... but that's because "God's pyramid scheme" is a little harsh.
The "your religion causes so many wars" thing is brought up a lot... It always makes me laugh or roll my eyes. Mainly because it's a huge oversimplification and generalization that amounts to empty rhetoric.
This is a great example of fallacy.
He is saying that
All Chinese products are not long lasting.
Chinese girls are from china.
One should avoid dating a Chinese girl.
The logic flows but it is absolutely ridiculous.
I've got to cook tea, but I'd like to discuss this further. I'll be back.
"All Chines products are not long lasting."
The logic may flow correctly, but with a false premise the result can still be false.
There is more than one kind of fallacy.
That specific example contains a generalization.
It was on the forum I didn't create that. Just to be clear I don't think that lol.
Or for a more on topic example of fallacy in syllogism.
Mr. A is sick with cancer.
His family prayed to god for his cure.
Mr. A was cured of cancer.
Well with the first example, we can show that Chinese products are not symbolic of Chinese people. It isn't hard to prove this.
In the second example, there is no evidence which completely rules out the miraculous, and therefore there's nothing fallacious about the conclusion. It is a matter of what the individual believes.
It is false because it is not the only possibility.
Therefore, it is false to assume it is the only truth.
It is called observational selection.
Avoiding other possibilities to make the outcome absolutely true.
I'm not saying it couldn't be true.
They are different kinds of fallacies.
The Chinese example and the god one.
The first example contains an untrue premise, invalidating the conclusion.
In the second example, there may be nothing fallacious about the conclusion, but there is nothing true, either. The logic doesn't follow and therefore the conclusion, true or not, doesn't follow from the statements.
The intent of the second example is to replace the statement that "Mr A was cured of cancer" to "God cured Mr. A of cancer", but it is not worded that way because it would become another premise, requiring proof. Thus the logic is false.
One of my favorite "words" to religious fanatics on HubPages would be, you're arrogant in thinking you know something that you can't possible know. Something that NO person on this earth can know. In regards to God and which religion is right even though they are all wrong
What's difficult is when those who are Christian or who have some sort of faith in God, who actually appreciate logic, respect other beliefs and other people, and who do NOT think that non-believers are stupid, dense, etc. get labeled by the same derogatory terms that those who are closed-minded, hateful, etc. get labeled with (and maybe sometimes deserve.) Unfortunately the stereotype of the Christian as a senseless idiot who blinds themselves to science, reason, logic, etc. has arisen because so many Christians have chosen to act in this way. Therefore, those Christians that are the exact opposite, are in immediate danger of the same stereotype and sometime spend more time fighting the stereotype that actually getting to voice what they really feel and believe and why they believe it. I hate the hatred, scorn, and disrespect that people of ALL beliefs and opinions have for those who don't believe the same. The worst for me to tolerate is the high-horse attitude which laughs and mocks at those they deem stupid. This applies to both Christian and non-Christian. It's sad Why can't people just love and understand each other (yes I'm an idealist. That's not reality. I know)
My dog barks when he is hungry.
My dog barked.
He must be hungry.
Not true because he could bark because he is in pain, playing or for other reasons.
These are true but very simple examples.
Sometimes we come across something which we intuitively know is true, like taking care of the elderly, for example. We know it and we don't look for proof for it. Is it an illogical fallacy to make such an unstudied generalisation? I would say that our logic, ie: our powers of deduction, is connected to our intuition. You cannot learn intuition, you are born with it. But how is it inherited? It is fine to call it natural alturism if you like, but I would say that it was equally fine to call it a spiritual facility: a connection to a spiritual God. There is no fairy to tell us this is true, but there is no genetic evidence to prove its existence either.
In the end, we go with our inclination.
I'm not arguing for or against god. Im defining what false logic and syllogism are(the best I can, I'm not an English teacher, lol)
From what I've seen it's used by both extremes.
by janesix5 years ago
I've come to notice that there are certain traits that religious fanatic share, especially Christians.IrrationallityStubbornnessNot being able to answer a question directlyObnoxious quoting and misquoting the Bible...
by Felixedet20005 years ago
When you take a critical look at the issue of religion and world peace, you will find out that the main reason for violence in the world is based on religious beliefs.Religion instead of uniting the whole world has...
by Eric Dierker3 years ago
There are actually some here that want more restrictions on what who can publish here!! They really want to hold back new artists and writers.Well excuse me Hitler's book burning Germany but no thank you. I grew...
by pisean2823116 years ago
Is rigidity of religion cause of fanaticism today?...my god only god , my way only way theme leading to individuals who want to have their way or cause trouble?
by Mark Knowles7 years ago
It is my contention that the Christian religion (and specifically following Christ) is guaranteed to cause conflict, wars and ill will.As proof - I cite the last 1800 years - including the hubpages forums as evidence....
by topgunjager8 years ago
Who can post the best argument about the existence or the non-existence of God and can support their answers using real logic? Don't use faith based logic when proving the existence of God.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.