I removed this, because there is no example given of his work dealing with the trope:
- James Branch Cabell also played with this, asking whether it makes any difference whether the events in religious stories "really" happened. He also repeatedly opines that "a freethinker is bound to eventually question the central article of his own creed: that because something has satisfied generations of men, it must be untrue"; and raises the question of whether Christian theology is actually more implausible than other things we never question.
I've also appended some thoughts about it. Most freethinkers would disagree that's the central tenet of their view, saying rather it's that beliefs should rest on evidence and be decided by reason. Some like Bertrand Russell have said religious people can also be freethinkers if they use these to support their belief system (see here
). A lot of early freethinkers were not atheists nor even agnostics, but deists, pantheists or liberal members of established religions. Saying because something has satisfied so many people, it's false, of course would be a fallacy. I'm unaware of any freethinker who has said that however, so this seems like a strawman. The opposite view would be the Appeal To Majority fallacy. I can't get more specific about the rest without knowing what he meant exactly.
Lord of the Blue Star
Picard and the others aren't saying all religions are wrong. They are stating that a religion based on a lie, that Picard is some powerful being, is wrong. To go down and give commandments based on his personal morality is something Picard sees as morally wrong and a horrendous lie.
Why are there people here getting upset that this is a "licence to whine" about how atheists are bad people? It's not necessarily saying that, (oddly, this trope is about how religious people are wrong), the trope title actually sounded like the counterpart to Science Is Bad.
Hide / Show Replies
It sounds more like the counterpart to Science Is Wrong.
Consequentialism: The belief that doing the right thing makes the world a better place. Check out the Felicifa forum for more about Utilitarianism and other Consequentialist ethical theories.
Why no real life examples? While atheism has never been proven true, there have been religions proven false. For example the Great Disappointment disproved the Millerite movement. They thought the world would end, and it did not. It's also interesting in that it shows what the real life results of this trope are.
Because if you give an inch, people will take a mile. It opens up a can of worms that I'm sure no one will want to deal with.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Why is it that this trope is listed under cynicism tropes whereas Religion is Right is not? I find that implicitly biased and somewhat offensive towards atheism so I just thought I'd mention it. Would it be ok to remove it from the Cynicism Tropes index?
Hide / Show Replies
Probably because modern, mainstream religion is inherently idealistic—there's a God watching over us, if you're good you'll be rewarded, if you pray it will be answered, and things happen for a reason.
Which implies that Atheism is inherently cynical which isn't true. What you say is also very subjective: I consider the idea that I'm free to live my life without an Eldritch Anombination telling me what to do to be very idealistic. At the very least this trope, (and similarly subjective tropes.) should be put under both cynicism and idealism indexes.
Happy New Year!
Religion Is Wrong doesn't automatic mean Atheism Is Right. The author could have a character 'disprove' and reject a tenant of their religion while still believing in other parts of it. Or hold agnostics views. Or convent to another religion.
Edited by joeyjojo hashtagsarestupid Hide / Show Replies
Hmm. Perhaps a rename to Atheism Is Right is a closer title to what was intended. Also, the parallel article would have the parallel title Atheism Is Wrong.
Edited by FastEddie Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Most works where a religion is proven wrong are written by atheists as Wish-Fulfillment or Take That! against the mean, mean fundamentalists - meaning anyone who is not a devoted atheist - who don't give up their silly superstition just because they don't want to acknowledge that the atheist is right. They're basically the atheist version of Left Behind.
And, well, if everyone who disagrees with you does that simply out of spite, then of course they'll agree with you if you can just get them to get over it already. Then you can bask in their admiration as you magnaminously forgive them for having ever disagreed with you.
In other words, stories conforming to this trope are pretty much nonsexual pornography, and as likely to be realistic.
Edited by 80.222.248.100
well we know your view on the matter. but the fact remains that Religion Is Wrong ≠ Atheism Is Right. Maybe a rename is the best way to let people vent their spleens and actually remain accurate.
hashtagsarestupid
I understand that it's true, it doesn't automatically make atheism right. But at the same time, this isn't at all different from a theistic Author Tract.
Happy New Year!
—- Joeyjojo: okay some one has reworked the fairly balance and relevant intro to make straw man attacks against atheism. This is Not a Licence To Whine. Knock it off.
hashtagsarestupid Hide / Show Replies
I'm a little quirked about the 'it's called faith for a reason.' It seems appropriating the word faith (a belief in things for which you have no proof), as if nobody who holds a religious belief that is falsifiable (such as some Koranic fundamentalists who believe the earth is flat, because they read the Koran as saying so) really has a 'faith' system. Seems pretty unnecessary to the page, too.
Anyone else seeing that, or is it just me?
I chopped that bit off. Didn't add much.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
I don't think the page quote fits, as there is never proof in the film that his claims are right.