KnifeMissile

Okay, I think there may be some progress, here. You've made it clear that you are objecting to Yakk's (and, perhaps, others' as well) attitude and how he addresses the issue. What confused the issue is that you also defended the plausibility of religious beliefs. There's nothing to defend, it is so implausible.

As I have said, before, there are atheists who feel that a more compassionate approach to the issue will be more effective. Your objection, in this regard, is not unreasonable (and not because there are atheists that agree. That's just a coincidence).


This is an interesting problem. Without any disrespect, the belief in religion is ludicrous. So, how does one express this to one that is religious with a "respectful tone?" Obviously, there is the real risk of offense regardless of what tone you make. You could dilute your opinion but that would dishonest. So, how do you express this? I think this is a theme we will revisit during this post...

I thank you for the concession but... why "silly?" I mean, it is silly, but why would this silliness "drag this thread down?" It expouses an important point. You can tell it's important 'cause it's been raised over and over again, even in this one thread! People use it as if it were a powerful argument and it's not...

The fact that no one cares about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is almost the point. We don't take this seriously but we take religion seriously. Why? They're both just as justifiable...

I remember a thread in Tilted Philosophy where the thread topic was something along the lines of "Why do you believe?" I can't find it using the search utility but I have learned that the search index is quite broken. It wasn't a debate thread. Instead, it was a list of testimony of why various people on this board believe in their religions. I remember one member saying that the history of Christianity impressed him. If it has lasted so long, it must be true!

Christianity does have a long history with ancient texts and many followers. Does this add to its credibility? You've never had a minority opinion, based on reasonable deduction, for which you were later vindicated? For much longer than the history of Christianity, everyone thought the Earth was flat. Neither history nor popularity are testiments to truth and it depresses me that there are few who understand this. A vast majority of people can be deluded. We are seeing it now. If nothing else, one can look at another religion and see "how horribly wrong they've gone." That can tell a pious person that their history is not evidence of validity...

If someone had called someone else on here "stupid" then this thread would have been shut down pretty quickly. However, I do understand what you mean. If I call something you hold as dear as religion "ridiculous," how do you not take that to mean that you're ridiculous for having believed it? I guess this is part of the whole "tone" thing to which you were objecting.

My mother is rather racist. Now, I may not respond well if you tell me that I'm stupid for believing her but... her racism is stupid. Her racism is as stupid as religion is. Again, it saddens me that people can't see the faults of their parents. Your parents can be just as wrong as anyone else, even on important matters and the sooner people learn this the better!

I understand that following the majority is easy and that there's value in community. However, are these reasons to believe? Personally, I can't help but think that people have better critical thinking skills than this and I assume that other atheists feel the same way. Am I overestimating the population?

You bring up another interesting point here and one that interests Sam Harris. Why is it "way out of line" to question religious belief? Republicans freely question Democrats, capitalists freely question communists, Macintosh users question Windows users, etc... Yet, somehow, when the topic is religion, suddenly you have to respect the other person's belief! You're way out of line to question all these people! Look how many of them there are!

Again, I don't understand why popularity is so meaningful. Britney Spears is a popular singer. Must I respect her?

Inspired by God but written by man. The teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster were inspired by His noodly greatness but written by a man, as well...

I can see an argument for rude and, maybe, disrespectful... but hateful? Does hating religion mean you hate religious people? Unlike some religions, he doesn't want to kill anybody. He just wants to reason with them. His tone may be condescending but it's far from "hateful."

Again, this notion of "proof" keeps kreeping up. That is why he addressed the notion and quality of proof which you interpreted as flip-flopping. He's brought a sound argument to the "large population" of believers that their belief is unreasonable. Is this not enough? There's a good argument that playing the lottery is stupid. Should we avoid making that statement?

There were control groups during all these experiments, if that's what you mean. No one would take them seriously if there weren't. The experiment could have been flawed but so can the Michelson-Morley experiment. Every experiment we have done, so far, has shown that whatever kind of god may be out there, he isn't an interventionist god...

Again, with this...

His contention is that one side is more reasonable than the other. That's what all his talks about provability and spaghetti monsters were about. It's rather honest of him to admit that you cannot prove the non-existence of God despite that it undermines his goal. He actually mentions that, in some sense, you can't prove anything, knowing full well that some will see that to mean that you can't prove He doesn't exist and then argue that it is, therefore, reasonable to believe. He admits all this because he wants a debate based on truth and honesty, without any semantic tricks.

This is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster keeps coming up. Because this point of provability keeps coming up, even in the same thread, even with the same poster, seemingly within the same post, as if it's a powerful argument and it's not...

But they won't stop hindering your life because their religion dictates to them that they must. What choice do you have other than questioning their beliefs?

Put it into perspective. Atheists aren't killing anyone. They aren't shooting doctors and they aren't flying planes into buildings. They are simply talking to people and asking them to think. How bad is that, even if it were done rudely?

I was correcting a factual statement you had made; that we aren't in a position to test the limits of the speed of light. We are and your response doesn't address this, at all. Your response here is utterly irrelevant...

...but still be able to question them, right? I mean, you can hardly go wrong with treating people well but we must always be able to question beliefs, right? We must be able to point out the flaws in religious reasoning and express analogies that illustrate the lunacy behind their beliefs. I think the problem might be that, even if you were to do this "respectfully," the pious will still be offended...

Personally, I think Yakk has shown due respect for people and that it's not reasonable to expect him to apply that same respect for the institution(s) of religion.

I don't doubt that. However, if a theist said that it was ridiculous to not believe in God and gave a bunch of reasons, would you feel it necessary to jump on them, as well? Do you think such action would be warranted?

Perhaps and, again, some atheists agree with you. Then again, I think Dawkins has a slightly different agenda. First of all, I'm sure that contraversy sells better than no contraversy. Ironically, I think it likely that more religious people have read his book than if he were to adopt your suggested attitude. Perhaps unfortunately, his attitude is a very natural one. I know I certainly feel the same way. Lastly, what he really believes is that there's a huge middle ground of "fence sitters" who will not be particularly offended by his attitude and will read his books and listen to his speeches and will actually think about what he has said. I think this may actually be a reasonable approach considering how difficult it is to convince someone of even mild faith to think critically of his own beliefs...

Well, this will depend on which part of the Old Testement you read. When the religion was just getting started, it was prudent to kill the "infidels" to try to keep the meme alive and you can see it in scripture. Literally, you're supposed to kill those who don't believe, etc...