KnifeMissile

I can't believe how stuck you are on the notion of "proof." The lack of proof against existence is not evidence for existence. This has been demonstrated, repeatedly. Why does it repeatedly come up? What's with this obsession?

Insults are so subjective. You say that you don't mind people being insulted as long as the it's the idea that's insulting them and not the words. Well, I don't think "delusion" is a pejorative. I don't think "ridiculous" or "proposterous" are pejoratives, either. If someone thought that magnets can cure a cold (something that some people believe!) and someone else came out and said that that was ridiculous, I'd don't think we'd be having this conversation. Theists may be insulted but we're not insulting them. Some people think that religion is ridiculous and they've supported their opinion with reasoned arguments.

Now, while Yakk has been using the pejorative "stupid," he's yet to call religious people stupid. He's only called their belief in religion "stupid." You've already said that using fairly neutral words like "ludicrous" or "ridiculous" is still insulting. Is there any word that can be used, here, that holds the same meaning? Judging by your arguments, I contend that it is the idea that's insulting and the wording matters little...

I certainly don't think one should go out of their way to insult the pious. Coming out and saying the christion people are idiots is a rather personal attack. However, saying that the christian belief is idiotic, while pejorative, is not an attack on the people. They may not see it that way but you can only go so far until being insulted is up to them and not you.

I would say that their beliefs are ridiculous or ludicrous and not consider that an insult. Instead, I would consider that merely a statement and whether they consider that insulting or not is up to them. I understand that you disagree so I'm wondering, exactly, how far you'd go if you were to make a similar statement. How would you word this statement so that the burden of offense is on them?

I was raised a christian and was able to question my religion. Therefore, I'm wondering why others who were raised similarly are unable to question theirs. This seems reasonable to me. I understand that some of them won't be able to this since we're not all the same. However, the idea that I may be exceptional seems... unlikely, at least. I guess this stems from my belief (and, this time, I have no real evidence of this) that we're all critical thinkers and we merely need to choose to think about things...

I understand why you cut out so much context since, frankly, these posts are getting too long. However, do you recall the part of my post that claimed that I listen to people regardless of how much they insult me? I don't disregard valuable information merely because the source of that information was a jerk. I understand that I'm unique in this regard but I don't get why you'd be surprised by my reaction given what I had told you about myself...

I suppose I don't love gravity the same way that some theists love God. However, I don't think that's the reason why I'm willing to dump our current theory of gravity (which I do love) nor do I think that's the only reason why theists aren't willing to dump God. I'm willing to change my view of the world because, like Yakk, I value truth and I know that you can't learn the truth by ignoring evidence. I understand that what I want to be true and what is true are two completely different things.

I think describing religion as "psychological mastery" is overstating it. There's a reason why Dawkins likened it to a gene. It has a self defense mechanism (you'll go to hell if you don't believe!) and a method of procreation (spread the gospel! Oh, and indoctrinate your children while you're at it), not to mention faith as a virtue. All this, as you implied, reinforces the belief but is rather transparent if only one were to think about it. It's not even all that surprising that it would have these properties considering it might have to in order to surive this whole time. This is natural selection working on memes...

I only remarked on this 'cause it's an intersting topic. Really, I don't understand how this is a response to faith as a method of believing the preposterous. I also don't get the last part of this paragraph. No one is saying that theists are delusional because they don't see the machanisms of their religion. They're saying they're delusional because they believe in fairy tales...

The goal is not to avoid insulting people. You, yourself, said that it's alright to insult them if it's the idea that's insulting. The issue, here, is whether we are insulting them needlessly. That is, if we are adding pejorative insults on top of the natural insult to the opposition of their beliefs.

...but why was she annoyed? She has said, herself, that she doesn't care if atheists call her stupid, so that's not what annoyed her...

This is another false association. Suppose the argument was about whether 1+1=2 or 3. You might imagine that it would be extremely difficult to get the proponents of 2 to concede anything. Are they "closed and narrow minded" or do they simply have nothing to concede?

I'm glad that you're happy with the atheists in your life although I'm curious to know what you mean by "respect." Your sentences were not well formed so it was hard for me to understand what you were saying.

I've accused you of some things but I've never accused you of making an ad hominem attack. To what are you referring when you say this?

I was going to let it slide but since I'm on the subject, anyways, I don't think you used the word "disingenuous" properly, either. There's nothing disingenuous about expecting your insults to sway people's opinion...