Maybe he feels this need because the church won't keep its faith out of our "faces?" More and more laws and public policy is being enacted based on "faith" and that's simply ludicrous and deserves a lively debate. It would also be nice if people didn't indoctrinate their children and, instead, let them make an informed choice when they're older...

I used to think so too, Kalnaur, but that's really not a useful definition. As willravel has said, that would mean that most self proclaimed atheists are really agnostics and that there are almost no atheists in the world.

A more useful definition of agnosticism would be if they took the possibility of the existence of god seriously while not totally committing to the idea. For instance, they should think that the possibility of God's existence is more likely than the tooth fairy's existence...

I am a bit puzzled. Every definition of Atheism is something along the lines of "denial of God's existence." Though nearly all of the atheists on this thread are open to the possibility of there being a god. Is this a misunderstanding between those who define Atheism and those who define themselves as Atheists, or is Atheism just a more specific sect of Agnosticism?

hey...another excuse to copy stuff from the oed.
yay!

agnostic:

atheist:

so bascially, ch'i, you're right.
the distinction is in the kind of claims made either by (or often about) agnostics or atheists.
it seems to me that many christian types (well believers in general, but i have more experience with xtians in number terms) can't tell the difference.

because there is also this meaning:

from which you can see how the term can be tossed about by christian types to basically mean "not one of us, not one of us" (in the mode of that classic film "freaks")...and this explains a little of why xtians tend to find atheists a threat: because they collapse ethics into morality, and then claim that they monopolze morality because they have this god character running around who functions as the anchor for "morality"---and on this, again, there is really nothing to say that nietzsche didnt say better.

anyway, it is because of the order of claims (of an agnostic rather than an atheist) that i think atheists are often little more than inverted christians. because they make the same kind of claims and run into the same problems.

like i said before, personally i think god is just a word.
but i wouldn't claim that i am certain, simply because it gets to a kind of goofy paradox, something on the order of:

"nothing is certain."

which is a problematic sentence.

I honestly think you're trying to create ambiguity where there is none...

I know I've flogged this analogy to death but as long as people don't get it, I'm going to keep flogging... Atheists are "open to the possibility of there being a god" just as they are open to the possibility of there being Santa Clause. Does that mean that they don't deny Santa Clause's existence? I think it's fair to say that they do deny his existence...

No, agnostics believe there is a god, but they can't define him or fall into religion.

no, will.
when it comes to this god character, not knowing is not knowing.
it implies no belief overt or covert.
it is what it is.
i dont call myself an atheist because i dont think the claims you can make for that position hold up logically.
but insofar as matters to do with religion are concerned (a notion that is itself a reflection of a christian dominated world, one in which all types of belief are necessarily modelled on xtianity) i dont believe any of it. i am probably a harder critic of it that you are----but not because i am certain.

i am not certain of much of anything: are you?

There are degrees of belief, you have to admit. My degree is that it's so unlikely that god exists, I won't waste my time even considering it. That's atheism as much as the vehemind denial of the existence of god is. Agnostics de believe that god exists, but they aren't sure about the true nature of god. It's all in the shades of gray. There has to be a point where you draw the line.

Will, quickly google agnostic.

like i said, i think god is just a word.
i believe that the word exists: what it refers to is an empty space that people fill in with projections.
i dont think that there is any pre-ordained order to the world. there is order, but it doesn't originate with any god.
i think religions hamfisted institutions geared around defending the existing order: reactionary backward foul institutions.
but i wouldn't call myself an atheist for the reasons i outlined above. the arguments are internally inconsistent. they are unnecessary. besides, if you look at the etymology (i love etymologies) i bit above, you can see that the word comes from an inversion of theism. it is the reverse image of what it opposes.

Ourcrazy, I don't believe in god. That makes me atheist.

RB, I'm not sure what you mean. It's clear that you're agnostic, but you seem to think that I would classify you as atheist. Don't worry, I get it.

From what I understand, agnostics believe that nothing can be known of the nature of god, or whether he/she/it even exists. They don't believe in God, but they also do not deny the possibility.

Is this wrong?

Even Richard Dawkins doesn't deny the possibility. Does that mean he isn't really an atheist?

Did you not read my previous post?

dunno if it's been posted, but here's Dawkins refuting the claims of students at Liberty University: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M

I have to admit that Richard Dawkins just makes perfect sense to me. I couldn't say for certain if I'm an Atheist or an Agnostic, but I really do click with the message he is trying to get out there. In fact, I think it was particularly interesting to see how the discussion ended.

I'm not sure how one can make an absolute statement with inconclusive evidence. The stance "God doesn't exist because I can't prove it" just isn't scientifically sound. As Dawkins points out, there are many things science can't prove but it doesn't say that these things don't exist, but rather that they might exist.

*Stupid double post*

It's not only scientifically sound, it's science.

All these ludicrous claims, from God to the tooth fairy, might exist but it is highly improbable. So much so that it's considered extremely safe to do so. That's science.

For instance, there's nothing that proves the non-existence of the aether under the Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction hypothesis, yet such a theory has been discarded by science. It is, both, scientific and reasonable.

We can't prove that there is a god. We can't prove that there isn't a god. By your reasoning, we should believe both theories!

No, it's much more reasonable to simply disbelieve all that can't be proven and wait for actual evidence before changing our opinion...

Yes. And saying there is an invisible pink unicorn behind my head is also a leap of faith -- because you are saying something that cannot be proved.

It can describe things that tend to be true. It can also provide a means to determine if a statement is meaningless blather.

Science is simply the practice of figuring things out that actually works. It includes means to detect stupid questions (What if there are invisible pink unicorns pushing the rocks around? It would look just like the experiment!) as well as means to determine if a question has been sufficiently answered (statistics, reproducibility, etc).

You can say "there is no evidence of a black swan". If someone says "I had a dream, and in it there was a swan that was black -- so there must be a black swan", you say "can you show me the black swan?"

If they can't produce one, then "I have no belief in the existance of a black swan" is a belief.

If someone showed up with a black swan, or even if someone did genetic analysis on the swans and demonstrated that 1 in 10000 swans will be black, this might change one's beliefs.

Every single known society has many wrong beliefs. Belief in the supernatural can be explained simply, as application of human's social intelligence to non-social parts of the world.

That isn't that hard an explaination. It is plausible. It makes predictions about the kinds of supernatural beliefs people will have. It even makes predictions about what parts of the brain religious thought will invoke.

In other words, it is a meaningful statement.

Belief in the supernatural cannot be disproven. The invisible pink unicorns could simply play with any tests so they look like there are no invisible pink unicorns. So "something supernatural exists" is a statement that has no consequences (it implies nothing) if it is true -- ie, it is a meaningless statement. If it had consequences, you could simply test to see if the consequences happen, and you would be able to confirm the existance of the supernatural. But with the IPU's hanging around, you can't do that test!

There is no need for the God hypothesis. If God created "the universe", what created God? If God created God, why not say "the universe created the universe" and do away with the God hypothesis?

Basically, saying "X created the universe" doesn't do anything to solve the problem of "what stared stuff".

There are lots of theories how the universe came into being. Many of them make testable predictions, and they are being poked at.

As an example, there are "virtual particles" which pop into existance all over space-time. They come from nothing, and their duration of existance is purportional to their energy balance, afterwhich they go away into nothing.

One theory is that the universe is just a large collection of "virtual particles", and that the sum energy of the universe is actually close to zero.

Of course, that leads to the problem of "where did spacetime come from". But we continue to learn new things, and we continue to push back the edge.

Meanwhile, there is a constant pattern of "God does X" being pushed out of reasonableness. The "God does X" predictions made in the past have failed time and time again, and what is left at the core is a statement that is without meaning.


If someone told you "things fall up -- just let go of something, and you will see!", or "tin foil hats save me from the hampster chicken overlords.", would you feel justified in saying "you are 100% wrong, and you really aren't worth arguing with"?

Will, i still respect you too.

The crux of my position is that while it may be irrational from a scientific perspective to believe in things without objectively verifiable proof, this kind of irrationality isn't necessarily that important when concerning questions whose answers are fundamentally impossible to prove.

Furthermore, while a belief system based on a commitment to rational decision making does not in and of itself require any faith, the decision to embrace that belief system does. There is no reason to believe that an unwavering commitment to only rationally explainable ideas and endeavors will make you, or society in general, better off in the long run. Unless of course, you define "better off" as being more rational.

I was just pointing out that atheists do fucked up things, too. Also, that attempts to discredit all of christianity based on the actions of only a portion of christians are lazy.

Also, you should be aware that christianity doesn't necessarily dictate a doctrine either, beyond a commitment to acknowledging the importance of christ.

Seems like a faith-based position to me. People don't need religion to be fooled, and they can do so quite spectacularly without it. You should try to see religion as more of a symptom than a cause.

Yeah, i'm saying that dawkins misses the point, that any system of morals or ethics necessarily is based, at some level, on completely subjective judgements which may as well be based on fairy tales.

Tell me why being strictly rational all of the time will make the world a better place. First, though, you ought to be able to define "better" in a way that is strictly rational. Good luck.

I would probably breathe a sigh of relief, get angry at myself for doing something stupid, decide whether maybe the "stupid" thing to do might actually be the "smart" thing to do and then be thankful that it all worked out.

I may be wrong here, but you seem to think that there is always a rational solution, and that that rational solution is always the one that should be pursued.

What do you do when you don't have a rational solution to pursue or you don't have time to come up with one? How can you be sure, in any given situation, that you have enough information to actually make a rational decision? In short, how can you have so much faith in rationality?

You're right, the rest of the world, the parts without humans, are pretty rational (electrons aside). I don't know where you live that you can so casually dismiss the human element's relevance in shaping the world around you. Where i live i have to constantly deal with the actions of people who aren't doing the things that i might expect them to.

Actually, at least in the u.s., fewer and fewer laws and public policy are being enacted based on faith. We are an increasingly secular country, despite what dawkins might have you believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_cat

As stories go, the Christ one was excellent. Wasn't it a Roman who made him a god, hundreds of years later? Crucifiction sucked, but there were a lot of men (!) who suffered it and died. Is it fiction which carries us onwards?

I read it. It did not answer my question.

The path is the obstacle. If a paradox lay upon it, it might merely be a hurdle. Atheism lacks the hard core that belief provides, and any reason to attack believers. Recognizably smart poeple should probably shy away from doing so.

What hard core that belief provides are you talking about, Ourcrazy? Do you mean the gooey center of misunderstanding and unhealthy dependence? If so, then you're right. Atheism lacks unhealthy dependence.

It sounds like your position is that people need answers even when there aren't any. Therefore, it's better to lie to them and pretend that you have some then to tell them the truth...

Ironically, I think most religious people would be willing to define "better off" as being more rational. They don't see themselves as being irrational, which explains why they aren't adapting your argument.

It's perfectly reasonable to focus on rationally explainable ideas 'cause they're rooted in reality and, since we live in reality, it would seem to be applicable. Your contention is that we should focus a little more on irrational stuff. Why? How is this supposed to help?

All of this is beside the point, as well. Atheists are only going as far as to say that we should dispense with religion. Any rationality beyond that can be discussed, later...

It depends on what you mean by "discredit." Christianity is a fairy tale, regardless of how benign its followers are. If people are using their religion to make arbitrary decisions, what else can you do besides remind them that they're making those decisions based on nonsense...

It's debateable whether religion is a symptom or a cause. Obviously, Dawkins thinks it's the cause. Do you have a theory on what it may be a symptom of?

That's not true and, apparently, he has a chapter detailing that. So, it's unlikely that this is a point that he "missed..."

Is this supposed to be the same point as the last time you used the term "he misses the point?"

Why do you think that we advocate being "strictly rational all of the time?" Strictly rational? All the time? Please... is this really time for hyperbole?

How is any of this relevant? Are you suggesting that religion is a case of when there was no other, more rational, decision? That people don't have enough time to make a rational decision about religion? Throw me a red herring, why don't you?

Now you're just lying. When did I "dismiss" the "human element?" Here's what you're responding to:How is this a "dismissal?" I'm quickly losing respect for you...

I would like to believe this but there's evidence to the contrary. Intelligent design is enjoying increased penetration, stem cell research funding was cut and Bush threatened to enact a constitutional amendment against homosexual marriage. It looks like Christian fundamentalism is enjoying a resurgence...




This doesn't answer your question?

Atheists deny His existence but that doesn't mean they can't be open to the possibility because the chances are so small that it is usually quite ignorable. Is your question still not answered?

Who's lying? My position is that it's not a big deal for one to believe in supernatural explanations for things that otherwise would have no explanation at all.

How are they irrational? They don't necessarily reject things that can be proven, they just believe in things that can't. How is that irrational in the context of an irrational existence?

Btw, i'm still wondering how you came to the conclusion that humanity will ultimately be better off if we only allow ourselves to think and behave rationally.

The experience of reality is only completely rational if you happen to be omniscient. That being said, being rational certainly has its place and there certainly are many theists who aren't open to new ideas.

I'm not saying we should focus more on irrational stuff. I'm saying that coming up with your own explanation for the irrational stuff is okay as long as you allow yourself to be corrected in light of better evidence.

I would bet that you actually aren't qualified to claim anything on behalf of all atheists.

Sure, but seeing as how most christians are well aware of the unprovable nature of their faith i can't imagine why you would bother, other than because you enjoy riding around on high horses.

People like explanations that are meaningful to them.

You're right. I assumed people were arguing his positions when they weren't. Let me amend my position on dawkins. He's wrong in the way most militant atheists are wrong: he thinks that reminding people that their faith isn't scientifically justifiable is the same thing as providing a compelling reason to abandon that faith. He thinks that reason should prevail in a place where reason doesn't necessarily matter.

It's probably the repeated denunciations of religion for its irrationality. So when is being irrational okay?

Yes, for many people religion is because there is no other explanation available beyond the atheist explanation of "there is no explanation at this time". Why is atheism necessarily the "rational" decision when it comes to religion? All atheism says is that there's nothing because there's no reason to believe that there is something. Why is that necessarily rational? Has there ever been a point where there was a something despite the fact that there was no reason to believe that there was a something?

You were responding to this:
I said that it doesn't makes sense to treat the world like a rational place.
You said that it's just the parts that involve humans that aren't reasonable as some sort of rebuttal to my statement.
Pardon me if that sounds like a dismissal of the amount of human induced senselessness in the world.
Sorry if i misread.

A lot of the people who support nonsense like this aren't in power any more. Besides, it could be argued that intelligent design is just a rebranding of creationism, which means that it isn't really anything new. Stem cell opposition isn't a strictly religious/religious right thing, though i'm not surprised that you'd make such an ideologically self serving generalization. The same goes for gay marriage.

Speaking of Richard Dawkins, he was on CNN recently:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rZX7RyidWvc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rZX7RyidWvc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Ok, sorry, Here you go. You're all Ignostic.

I was inquiring the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism, not the definition of what Atheists believe. Though there seems to be some ambiguity in my question, which I have now decided makes that question irrelevant to the discussion. Thank you for trying, nevertheless.
Does it really matter which label best suits a position? It seems reasonable to say that less than 100% of the practitioners of any religion precicely follow, or completely know, their religion. The position is what matters.

Yes, sir! You put it much better, though, thanks.:thumbsup:

What do you mean by "believe"?

Do you mean "I don't know what is in my kitchen right now, so I'll believe that if I enter or look into my kitchen I'll be eaten by an invisible rabid wolverine?"

I think that having that belief would be a pretty damn big deal. Note that there is no way to disprove this belief other than risking being eaten by a rabid wolverine -- there is no evidence that can be produced that would prevent an invisible from being in my kitchen, and be about to eat me.

So now I can't enter my kitchen.

Such beliefs can cover everything. And it is not that hard to construct a belief that cannot be disproven -- "after I cease to exist, my undetectable soul will be judged by how many sinful women I have killed".

If a belief is fundamentally irrational, there is no way it can be addressed or disproven using rationality. No evidence can be provided that contradicts it. No arguement can be made against it.

See above.

Our existence rational, it is just increadibly complex. There are some parts of it that resist being reduced -- but they are almost always bounded within a set of rational bounds. These bounds on human behaviour can be checked, studied, examined, and used to predict what is and isn't reasonable.

Rational does not mean perfect, correct or predictable.

I can say that a triple-pendulum behaves rationally. I cannot predict what it will do, but I can predict many things that it won't do.

Neither am I -- but I know that "athiest" is a position about the existance of god, not a position about the supremacy of rationality in all modes of human behaviour. As such, claiming that the supremacy of rationality is a seperate, larger arguement than athiesm seems pretty damn reasonable. :P~~

Have you met most Christians? Just curious!

Or he's argueing that the lack of scientific justifiability should be a reason why you shouldn't put much stock in religions. By putting forward that position, it is possible that more people will agree with his measure of meaning. They are likely to teach their children, friends and aquantances this measure of meaning. Some of them might be swayed.

It could be that Dawkins realizes that there are people who are lost causes, who are so heavily indocerinated that they are immune to his arguements. And maybe he's fine with that -- you can never convince everyone. But that doesn't mean he has to tolerate their stupidity or coddle them.

Rational doesn't mean right. Rational doesn't mean infallible.

I can come up with situations where it is Rational do believe something that isn't actually true.

Neither of these are strictly religion based. Yet strangely there is a huge correlation between gay marriage and stem cell opposition and being more fundamentalist.

It could be a third factor causing the correlation. Can you think of one?

I don't get what the invisible rabid wolverine would be an explanation of. Furthermore, you should be able to understand the difference between speculation concerning what may or may not be in the kitchen and speculation concerning what may or may not occur after one dies. One is easily tested, the other is not. The difference is between believing in things that fly in the face of what would generally be expected and believing in things that exist solely in the context of the unexpectable.

I know. Again, if you think that an effective rebuttal of faith can be administered by pointing out how unscientific that faith is you might save yourself sometime and not bother.

Science is at the mercy of reality, when it comes to viable modeling, not the other way around. So far, in terms of many of the things that theism/spirituality seek to address, reality hasn't been very submissive to the needs of science.

So then why isn't theistic belief rational?

It depends on the grounds the atheist in question uses to justify the dismissal of theism. If theism is dismissed on the grounds that it is irrational, than the supremacy of rationality must be essential to the atheist identity for that particular atheist.

I haven't met them all, which is why i like to qualify my statements about christianity and christians as such. I am continually amazed how those who profess such a fondness for the exacting theories of science can't seem to wrap their heads around the notion that there is no such thing as a prototypical christian in terms of ideology or practice. Christians believe in christ as a messiah, beyond that, they're pretty diverse.

Sounds downright evangelical. This isn't much of a rebuttal to what i said. It's more just a moderately ethnocentric, historically ignorant rephrasing. Do you really think theists are all stupid, and that not telling them that they are stupid amounts to coddling them? I hope you're not one of those people who wonders why atheists get such a bad rap?

I agree with you. In the context of a less than reasonable existence, it might be rational to believe in things that aren't "true" in the scientific sense.

There is also a huge correlation between support for gay marriage and stem cell research and being a liberal christian. Apparently the correlation is more one of progressiveness than theism.

umm...would my believing that we waste too much time worrying about what each other believes piss anybody off?

Testing what happens after you die is easy -- so easy that the majority of the human race has done it (as of about 2000 AD). Nobody has reported back with any reliability, however.

Note that so long as I don't go into the kitchen, the rabid wolverine hypothesis can't be disproven. And even if I do, it might be hiding and waiting for the the right time to attack -- so I should get out of there as soon as possible.

This is a ridiculous belief. About as ridiculous as most religious beliefs, really.

So are you talking about social acceptance more than anything else?

Based on what we know about life and death of living organisms, when something dies the pattern ends. Thinking that the pattern that is the person continues really flys in the face of what generally would be expected. When enthropy happens, it is very very unexpected that it spontaneously unhappens in a magical strange way.

Now, if you are talking about social acceptance, that is a different matter. I'm willing to grant that religion is currently socially accepted.

Fixing this will require effort.

Did you read the details of that belief? It was an attempt to reflect a possible belief pattern for jack the ripper.

I'm pointing out that religion is ridiculous. I am holding religion and those who believe in it up to public ridicule. I believe that religious belief is mainly held together by social rules and acceptance -- so by pointing out that religious beliefs are ridiculous claptrap, I can undermine the acceptance of religion, and (mostly) cure it.

One way of doing this is taking an accepted mode of thought with a proven track record (science) and bashing religion over the head with how wrong it is, based off of things we know.

If you don't think repeated ridicule of action can work to correct behaviour, you obviously haven't seen teenagers interact socially.

And yes, if you believe in most religions, I think your beliefs are ridiculous, silly, and stupid. Note that I am pretty confident that I hold some ridiculous, silly and stupid beliefs -- for the most part, I don't know what they are yet. Having ridiculous, silly and stupid beliefs does not make you unredeemable. It simply means you haven't redeemed yourself yet.

I have different beliefs. I believe you are wrong. You have different beliefs. You believe I am wrong. Isn't duality wonderful?

So I will bother to point out how ridiculous many religious beliefs are, because I think humanity as a whole would be better off if we all realized how stupid religious beliefs are.

So I won't coddle their sensibilities. Now I won't do this all of the time -- I'm a greedy git sometimes, and there are other things I consider more important than pointing out you are a fool.

Science: It works, bitches.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg

;)

That is a silly claim to make. Theism/spirituallity once attempted to cover everything. From the geography of the world, to the history of the world, to the origin of humanity, to the arrangement of the heavens, to the cause of lighting, to why the rains came, to the cause of disease -- and it came out wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again.

The world wasn't created in 7 days. Humanity and the world are older than 4000 years. Lighting is not the arrows of the Gods. Mt Olympus is not where the Gods hang out. The world is not made out of the skull of a Titan. Pi is not 3. Noah did not place 2 of every animal on the ark. Jesus did not rise from the dead. Nobody turned to salt by looking over her shoulder. No diety justified the mass murder of babies.

The claims that Religion and Spirituality make, every time humanity has gained the ability to check them, have turned out to be utter and complete claptrap. The remaining claims are more and more tenuous and further and further removed from the present day -- but when something makes you 100 promises, and then provably renegs on 90 of them, do you trust the last 10 just because you can't tell yet if he broke them?

What is happening right now is you are saying "other than the millions of ways which Religion and Spirituality have been proven wrong in the past, there are some statements that haven't been shown to be claptrap".

So far, Reality has been giving Science high-fives of insane quantities of information and accuracy, and has been very uncooperative to Religious beliefs.

Why isn't a chicken a dog?

I don't understand. Why would Rational not meaning perfect, correct or predictable mean that theistic belief was rational?

Your "so" seems to indicate that there is some connection between my observation that you don't have to be able to perfectly predict reality in order to be rational, and your question about "why isn't theistic belief rational?"

Above and beyond the problem that your above statement is wrong, it is also irrelivent to the statement you are replying to.

The only way it could hold is if you put the cart before the horse, and claim "all atheists are actually fanatical hyper rationalists who accept no other justification for any action". If you want to make that claim, I'll laugh and disagree. If you don't want to make that claim, then I don't see how your above arguement is relevent to what you responded to.

You said "most christians", not "some christians". Have you met most christians? What evidence do you have that "most christians" are think that their beliefs claim nothing about the nature of the pre-death universe?

(If it had a claim about the nature of the universe that wasn't meaningless, one could check the consequences of the claim, and possibly disprove the faith. Hence, anything that cannot be disproven in a world X always implies absolutely nothing about the world X.)

I think that most christians don't think about why they believe in their religion. They just go through the motions out of habit. And that a good chunk of "christians" are actually non-believers who go through the motions in order to gain social status.

I don't know these facts, but I suspect them.

Note that as societies become less insular (say, larger cities), church attendance drops off rapidly. This could be correlation and not causation, I suppose...

I don't want to burn theists at the stake, if it makes you feel any better about atheists.

Some people are stupid at math, other people are stupid at theism. I'm stupid at spelling and memory.

I think that theists have some stupid beliefs. You can be a smart person and hold a stupid belief. One way to have such a belief is to not think about it, or you could have a blind spot.

And pretending to hold a stupid belief for your own advantage is dishonest, but not always stupid. I suspect many "theists" are in this category -- I have mimed theistic actions (bowing heads during grace, etc) in order to reduce social friction in the past, and when I was a child I felt compelled to go through the motions regularly.

I suspect I have stupid beliefs. Maybe one day I'll figure that they are stupid and change them. :)

And I believe that many theists think my belief that organized religion is an evil is wrong. I can accept that they think I'm wrong.

Yes. And then as you gain information, you can check, correct and discard your incorrect beliefs.

Why yes, liberal christians tend to believe in less of the religious claptrap than conservative christians.

Yakk, this hits it on the head.

Not to take away from the fascinating discussions going on...and Im sure no will will notice my interruption lol, but I have now watched both parts of this documentary and I wanted to make just two comments...

There is actually something (there were a few, but this is the biggest IMO) that I agree with (keeping in mind, I believe there is a God, and I believe in him)

The point about the children is right...my parents raised me the same way I raise my daughter....I was provided with an education that taught me not just about christianity, but other relegions and atheism as well and was always told to make my own choices about what I believed, or didnt believe. I do this with Amanda, we study and discuss all aspects of theism and atheism and even at 13 she has thanked me for that because she is seeing already that some parents will not tolerate a belief system different from their own. If she were to decide there was no God, I would not love her any more or any less than if makes she faith decision that He does exist. When it comes down to it, one group is right and when I die I will find out which one, and if its my group thats right...then the non believers will have to deal with God then and its none of my business, because I love them just the same.

Now this 2nd point is one I categorically disagree with, and I see it as him making a broad generalized statement about ALL believers. He said that only atheists "lived their life to the fullest". Not true, I along with many believers that I know tend to try to "live as if its our last day" Just because we believe in a "great beyond" doesnt mean we know what that great beyond entails, and we live our life on earth knowing "we dont know". Hell is defined as a seperation from God; an exclusion from his presence, and thats something I dont want. I choose to think when we die (and please I dont want to start a debate in what "heaven" is....Im simply stating my belief in rebuttal to him saying I'm "just enduring my life here") we are reunited with our loved ones and all the unanswered questions are answered and I will be able to look upon the face of god (since according to the bible, I cant do it and live to tell about it). Thats great and I look forward to it, BUT I want to savor and enjoy every moment and every gift God has given us here on earth. I want to marvel at nature, and revel in my husband and all the joy he gives me. I dont see that as "enduring life on earth just to get to the hearafter"

/you may now go back to the reguarly scheduled debates

Okay, pretend instead of testing i said predicting.

But you can go into the kitchen, rather easily i would suspect.

Nope.

I presume you mean entropy, unless you're talking about the "hardcore" french record label. Well, if we're talking thermodynamics you must be aware that, like the existence of god, the second law can't actually be proven either. The 2nd law has never been contradicted, though, and it seems to be a pretty useful idea. I personally wouldn't try to find the exception to the rule, but i don't begrudge those who would. No doubt you would disagree.

I'm sure once science has the answers to all the questions people have been wondering about since the dawn of consciousness you'll have achieved you goal. I wouldn't expect that to ever happen, though.

So you're saying that your plan for recuiting people to the cause of atheism is to target teenagers or other people with adolescent emotional intelligence? Let me know how that works out.

Sounds good to me.

I disagree about the better off part. There is definitely a lot of good shit that religious people have done. Ghandi, MLK, soup kitchens and all that.

I bet many of them wouldn't want to be coddled. They would probably just be grateful that you could come down to their level enough to point how flawed they are.

You'd think a proponent of science would appreciate a belief system that can adapt to emerging understanding.

I guess some people do. I can't claim to understand why. I think for some folk, religion is more about finding meaning than explaining some things. I don't see why it bothers you so much.

Millions? Really? That's an interesting number to pull out of thin air. How many times has science turned out to be wrong?

I guess i missed the point of what you said. Having looked up the definition it would seem that theism does fit the bill, though.

Sorry, i got my atheists mixed up.

Well, i was talking with this guy named willravel up above and a large part of his position seemed to be that theism should be dismissed on the basis of its irrationality. I thought we were still talking about that idea, since, you know, that's what i was talking about originally when you started rebutting me. What were you talking about?

What makes you think that the pre-death universe had anything to do with what i was saying right there. All i was claiming is that most christians are aware of the fact that their faith can't be justified scientifically. I don't have any evidence, just something i suspect.

Does it? All the churches in my neighborhood look like they're full come sunday morning. Is this another one of those things that you suspect?

I agree with you here.

I imagine that theism will cease to matter once the subjects it speaks to are spoken to better by other things. Until that happens i can't imagine that atheism as a movement will have much of an effect. Especially since any movement born out of a feeling of oppression seems to stall as soon as it's members stop feeling oppressed. If you're goal as a militant atheist is to eliminate religion, i would suggest you make some lemonade and take a seat on the porch, because you've got a whole lot of waiting to do.

I don't know about that. I think they tend to believe in more inclusive religious claptrap.

Some atheist needs to start a grassroots atheist organization that gets happy, well meaning atheists together to do good deeds for those in need in their neighborhoods, hold simple/fun fundraisers to support the good deeds, have weekly group get-to-gethers that feature potluck dinners, sing-alongs, youth groups, mutual support and goodwill among members.....all the cool stuff about religions (the social stuff). Start a framework for an atheist "Notachurch" (not-a-church) that is positive and newsworthy......and can be copied successfully all over the world. Do all the good things religions do....just dump the fairytales....

Lizra... there are all sorts of secular organizations that do this already. As a secular organization they welcome theists and atheists alike.

One of the problems, in my opinion, with *some* theists, is group think. I would never join and atheist group as I am sure it would devolve into the same sort of thing.

Well...my vision....No theists, the weekly talk could be about furthering science and truth, in our modern life. The "group-think" could be about the importance of accepting reality of this life now... doing what you can to help make it better, for yourself and others. I wouldn't mind that.....and it would be good for my kids! :thumbsup: Life's too short to miss out on things like that, imo.
Personally, I find practising atheism to be lonely. :sad: That is the only drawback. I like a group (positive) experience.....there's strength and fun in numbers....oh well....just a thought.....

I see what you mean by wanting to join a group and the need to connect with others who share your point of view. I suppose one of the things I don't like about organized religion is the group experience so I have no desire to replicate this.

That aside, I find your use of the phrase, "practicing atheism" rather odd. How does one do this? There is no proscribed method or practice. For me, the whole point is that there is no method or "way".

Atheism, to me, is the natural state. All religion is a perversion of nature.

Well then you're screwing up, and frankly you're being a jerk to those who hold religious beliefs. Religion is not ridiculous. People who have religion do not deserve public ridicule any more than people who do not have religion deserve it. The fact is that we cannot prove the existance of God either way. Frankly anyone who tries to prove OR disprove the existance of a deity is barking up the wrong tree. Unless God himself comes down and proves to us that he is a god, there is no way of knowing whether or not he exists.

I'm not religious but that doesn't mean that I show religious people the marked disrespect that you are showing them in your post.


Religious people have good reason to believe in their religion - they, their parents, and society has believed in it for over 2,000 years. There is no less evidence that God exists than there is that Socrates existed, yet I don't see people running around saying people who believe in Socrates are stupid.


And why would you want to do that? What possible motivation would you have, other than pure mean spiritedness, for taking such a significant part of people's lives away from them?

Well I'm agnostic, but I still think your attitude here is immature, mean, and stupid. Leave these people alone. They're not hurting you.

Shakran I would just really really like to say thank you

there is certainly a lot less evidence that God exists than that Socrates did.
It's just us here, people. Who wrote the scriptures, who ran the "Inquisition"?

The only evidence of God is the bible.

The only evidence of Socrates is in some scrolls left by his purported students. How do we know they didn't make him up? We don't have a body, we don't have video or audio evidence, we don't have witnesses.

The only plausible reason for believing in Socrates over God is that Socrates was never portrayed as supernatural or capable of supernatural feats.

It is no more or less ridiculous than belief in the flying spagetti monster, invisible pink unicorns, or running around with your skin painted blue so the UFO over-masters will take you to space.

I disagree.

The only "existance of God" that cannot be disproven is a claim without any conseqence in this universe. It is, effectively, utter and complete nonsense wrapped up to look pretty.

So long as those who believe in the existance of God don't try to infect me, my children, or anyone placed under my care, and they don't place any restrictions on my behaviour based on their ridiculous beliefs, I am fine with their ridiculous beliefs. Once they step beyond that, they are harming me, and as a matter of self defence I am justified in harming them.

Evidence that the non-existance of God is false can exist. As an example:

A big glowy person with a white beard showing up, talking at the same time to everyone at the same time, explaining that they made the universe, demonstrating millions of physically impossible tasks, demonstrating personal knowledge of everyone he talks to -- that is an example of some pretty strong evidence that "God does not exist" is wrong.

So "God does not exist" is a testable belief.

It isn't possible to prove anything, period. Not beyond a shadow of a doubt. But you can test things -- take what you believe, predict what will or will not happen, and see if you are right. Beliefs pass many such tests are often called "proven". Beliefs that fail such tests are called "disproven".

"God does not exist", as a belief, has produced predictions. These predictions have tended to pan out. As such, one could say "God does not exist" has been "proven".

Meanwhile, the weakest "God does exist" "statement", the one that cannot be disproven -- it doesn't produce any tests or predictions that can be checked. Stronger "God does exist" statements (ie, "God exists, and the God that exists wrote down the literal truth of history in the Bible") have been "disproven" pretty damn often.

As an example, the Flying Spagetti Monster "global warming is caused by lack of pirates" can be demonstrated to be false -- in this case, because their graph of # of pirates is way off (not even close to the right shape).

Or the Christian Bible's implied approximate 6000 year age of the Earth -- it predicted certain things that didn't pan out (and really surprised people when they discovered them!).

I consider them to be wrong, and that they hold a ridiculous belief. I may respect them for other parts of their lives, but their religious belief reduces my respect for them.

Belief justified by social acceptance. As such, if society stops accepting the belief, there is no longer a good reason to believe it.

If that is the only good reason to believe it, then once it is ridiculed there is no longer a good reason to believe it.

One claim is extraordinary, the other is pretty mundane. In one case, the literal existance matters, in the other it doesn't matter that much.

In one case, the existance "matters", in the other it doesn't. If Socrates turned out to be a fabrication by some other ancient scholar or scholars, the study of Socrates would be just as imporant as it is today. The Socratic Method would keep it's name.

Let's have a though experiment. Time travel is invented that lets you look into the past. Using other technologies, we also are able to pick up the internal monologues of people as they act. Cool, eh?

Using it, we find out that Socrates was invented by Plato. He wanted to express the Platonic Ideal of what he thought a Philosopher should be. The action behaviour of Socrates is a mixture of imagination and the acts of various other people Plato knew.

At the same time, we find that almost every single event in the Bible where invented by Priests who wanted power. There was no burning bush, the Isrealites never came from Egypt, the person "Jesus" never existed but was rather cobbled together from various other myths.

Somehow, I think the responses of people who "believe" in the Christian God and people who "believe" in Socrates will be different.

I have chosen to value Truth, Intelligence and Honesty. Not above all other values, but I hold them to have some value.

I dislike lieing. I dislike it when people are basing their actions off of ridiculous motivations, and those actions interfear with my goals.

If that where true, you might have a point. But even as I speak, the government subsidizes Churches. Their morality is imposed upon me in my private affairs. And occasionally religions convince people to blow themselves up, threatening aquantances of mine. Some of them are beating up gay people, others of them are blocking funding for effective stem cell research.

If people where willing to keep their beliefs out of the public sphere and in their homes, that would be one thing. But they don't.

Except that the first two examples are established to not exist, especially the first one, which was invented in the last decade. And frankly, you're still being a complete damn jerk for comparing people who believe in a deity to whackjobs who form UFO-based cults.


OK. Put your money where your mouth is. Prove there is no god. And I mean PROVE it, not just "I, Yakk, believe there is no god."


Apparently not since your earlier post advocated that you want to "undermine the acceptance of religion, and (mostly) cure it."

That isn't exactly showing even a modicum of tolerance.

I agree that they should not project their religious beliefs onto you or try to force you to behave in certain ways just because their religion tells them they must behave in those ways. However, the vast majority of religious people lead quiet lives in which they do not attempt to oppress anyone. They are completely undeserving of your hate-filled ridicule.





Yes, we all understand that if God actually comes down here and proves his existance that his existance will be proven. But the abscence of that proof is not itself proof that god does not exist.


In the same way that "it is impossible to move faster than light" is a testable belief - but not one which we can test at the current time. Until God comes down here and proves his existance, we cannot test his existance.

Your logic is as faulty as your attitude. You say it's not possible to prove anything, then you say that the nonexistance of god has been proven. We'll get back to this idea once you can keep the same premise solid through two paragraphs. Until then, kindly back off the many intelligent and kind people who happen to believe in something you don't.


That's exactly my point. That's why it's called faith. Others have faith that god exists. You have faith that he does not. Neither group can possibly prove their faith right or wrong.

Spreading bullshit 3 feet thick through a thread won't disguise the fact that you're dead wrong, and it certainly won't disguise your complete lack of respect for those who happen to believe in a deity.


I'm not trying to prove to you that god exists, and I'm not going to debate the immensely flawed bible with you. We both know the bible has logical contradictions galore. That does not, however, preclude the possibility that a higher power than humans exists somewhere in the universe. It does not preclude the possibility that the universe was somehow created, nor does it preclude the possibility that you are dead wrong about the non-existance of a deity.

That's nice. Keep the disrespect to yourself in here. Debate the issues, not the people.


Maybe. What's your point? Leave them alone. They're not hurting you.

Then perhaps you could redirect that intelligence of yours to examining the niceties of social behavior, and maybe even adapting a few of them. It's not polite to tell someone their belief is ridiculous, especially when you can offer no concrete evidence that they are wrong.

Some guy down the street believing in god won't get in the way of your goals any more than 2 homosexuals wanting to marry will turn you gay. Relax, and back off.


And the tide goes both ways. Religious people throughout history have been tortured, mutilated, burned at the stake, and killed in many other nasty ways by those who decided their beliefs are ridiculous. Attack the individuals who beat up the gays, attack the individuals who try to impose their morality on you, but leave the group alone. I am certainly not ascribing your horrendous attitude to all athiests, neither should you ascribe overbearing morality to all religious people.

"Practising atheism" is just a figure of speech I'm using, Of course, I don't mean any ritual....It seems to me that many atheists might benefit by coming together and devising/enjoying and employing local ways to make "not believing" seem more positive....not just have atheism mean "people who don't believe in god". :expressionless: Our glass is half full! Not empty....in my mind, religion is the actual emptyness....because it's make-believe! It's not right that atheists get such a bad rap. (I live in a small midwest rural community, perhaps the big city folk don't get the bad vibes I do :paranoid: )

So I'd like to see atheism/science veiwed as a very positive state of mind! :thumbsup: ....atheists are people with open free minds, that want to use all the modern tools (science, advanced communications) we have available to us NOW to benefit mankind as a whole. We don't need to rely on the old antiquated customs that seem to repeatedly divide humans and cause hate/wars (religions).

Good things start small and grow (local) , and good reps come from actual one-on-one experience, not from reading and debating. If a local group of atheists can easily get together and repeatedly work towards the betterment of the needy, and their local community, WHILE promoting their natural disbelief in god and religion, others in the community can come to associate atheism with normal people who do positive deeds etc, etc.
It's such a broad concept I have...it's hard to lay it out....:o (We need to go in the back door and change the world with deeds, not words....and always SCIENCE! SCIENCE! SCIENCE! religious nuts that are trying to teach religion instead of science are bad people :thumbsdown: )

This is interesting. I suppose that, for some, it's easy to debate for a side that appears to be reasonable. I mean, "tolerance" is a popular idea these days (and for good reason, I would say); to "respect" other's beliefs and values, including (and, perhaps, especially) their religion. I believe this to be the motivation behind your vehemence for the defense of religion but I, personally, find it to be misguided. Already, you're probably reading this thinking "okay, lets see what I can find wrong with anything he says" and, in the process, ignore anything that's right in what I'm about to say...


I would very much like to know why you think "the first two examples" have been "established to not exist." The point of those examples is that they demonstrate how powerful an argument that "you can't disprove His existence" is not. In exactly the same manner that you can't disprove the existence of God, you can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. You're probably pretty sure they don't exist, mostly because they were notably made up by men but, then again, so was the Old Testemant, so that's hardly reason to doubt, if I were to judge from the actions of the pious...

Given the context, I don't think this is an appropriate followup to the claim "put your money where your mouth is." The underlined text was made by me to demonstrate the context that you appear to have ignored. Yakk never said that he can disprove any notion of God. He qualified his claim to all aspects of God that have been testable. For instance, there have been surprisingly many experiments to test the power of prayer (personally, I'm surprised anyone was willing to pay for said experiments!) and they consistently produce as many positive results as the Michelson-Morley experiment.

I think this is a prime example of you reading what you want to read. Motivated by your attitude that all beliefs must be respected (your "tolerance" motivation), you will say anything that even appears to be reasonable. Of course no one can simply disprove God so it's a pretty safe challenge to put forth and so you do, even if it isn't really a response to what was said. I believe this is part of the dishonesty that Yakk loathes...

Let me suggest something that will help you undestand Yakk's position (and many other's, I reckon), if you are interested in doing so.

Suppose you live with a group of people who are delusional. Delusion needn't be the product of mental illness (indeed, there appears to be a human need for religion but that's another topic). It can simply be the product of a powerful meme. Nonetheless, they believe in something that is utterly unreasonable and they use it to make your life hard. Not all of them, mind you. Just the powerful ones... Most of them simply keep their delusional beliefs to themselves and let the others do what they will with it. Would you be motivated to take these people out of their delusion, despite that not all of them are using their delusion to hinder your life?

Even the atheists in this thread have said that the absence of proof does not constitute proof, yet this point has come up several times in this thread in the defense of religion. Why is that? This is a point that both sides agree upon but is still an item of contention?

The point that atheists, here, have been making is that it's reasonable to disblieve in God without the proof of nonexistence for which you are asking. This can be demonstrated by pointing out that there are many things that theists freely disbelieve whose absence can't be proven.

Everyone is an atheist of the other fellow's religion. Atheists merely add one more religion to that list...

This is simply false. Not only is there plenty of evidence that travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible (just check out Tilted Knowledge) but we have been testing these limits out, for quite some time now, in particle accelerators...

You may fault his attitude, as other atheists have, but not his logic. He was merely clearing up a point of semantics yet you, somehow, interpret this as him flip-flopping on his stance. Again, this is another good example of you not reading what was actually written and, instead, trying very hard to discredit anything he says. Is there a reason why you are trying as hard as you can to not understand his point of view?

What Yakk was trying to say is that while we throw around propositions like "proof," there are really degrees of believability in life. We really believe in some things (often, enough to trust our lives in them!), kind of/sort of believe in other things, and disbelieve the rest.

Atheists contend that the believability of God is quite low and wonder why theists think it's so high. Some theists think it's rather high while others think it's a test of their faith that it's so low...

Actually, they are. We've been over this point, before, so I won't expound on it again (this is why I haven't responded to every paragraph). They're not all hurting us but it appears that the important ones are...

Well, he can offer good evidence to support his claim. Perhaps, more importantly, he can point out how deeply flawed their claim is to them in the hopes of understanding. It may not be "polite" to show theists how ridiculous their beliefs are but it can be argued that it's impolite for them to push their belief system onto the rest of us so what else can Yakk do? To many atheists, bringing people out of their religion is not a bad way to go...

It should probably be noted that most of the "religious people throughout history" who have "burned at the stake" had those undeniably cruel acts done to them by other religious people. The hope of atheists is that, without religion, there will be no more stake burnings, metaphorical or otherwise. At the very least, their motives won't be hidden behind religion...

You can think of it as optimism on the part of those atheists who blame religion for the poor actions of the religious instead of the individual.

In the case of Christianity, it is unambiguously their duty to save our souls by forcing their beliefs on us. So, how can you fault the individual for following the tenets of thier religion? The only thing you can do is to blame the individual for following that religion or to blame the religion, itself. Unfortunately, these issues are not unique to Christianity, so some atheists apply this attitude to all religions. However, in practice, they really only talk about the big two: Christianity and Islam...

i've been following this thread but haven't had much to add: this is more a question. a meme on its own wouldn't do what you're attributing to it. a delusional society would have an internal rationality built around what you would consider delusional. if you played along socially with them--if you knew the rules of the social game--then one of the effects would be that what you characterize as delusional wouldn't at all *be* delusional for that community. and without some kind of internal oppositional politics, the class oppression that you talk about would be considered more or less normal as well. (think class relations in the united states if the point seems too abstract--what counts as oppression exactly? the idea moves around, doesn't it?)...

this raises all kinds of questions about ethics in relation to ideology. the usual example is that within the administrative apparatus that administered the holocaust, the project of exterminating the jewish population was understood as a rational administrative goal. the bounded rationality of the bureaucracy--like that of any "corporate culture"---was constructed (though not intentionally so) such that it would have been a real conflict to have raised ethical objections to the administrative end--because the rules within which you, as hypothetical administrator of genocide, would have operated all would have been geared around the assumption--not even the argument or claim--but the assumption that the goal of genocide was value neutral.

this is quite a problem, one that tends to be avoided by most historians of the holocaust--it is much easier to imagine that the germany of the 30s and 40s represented some deviation from the course of modernity than a logical extension of some of its aspects---an exception is zymgunt baumann's book "the holocaust and modernity"---which is good: i'd recommend it even.

i should say--because i know this objection is coming if i dont--that i am NOT EQUATING RELIGION AND THE NAZI ADMINISTRATION OF GENOCIDE. i use the example because (a) i can outline it quickly and (b) because it demonstrates the power of these internal norms/rules precisely because it involves the administrative normalization of an action that anyone would otherwise see as pathological.

so a "delusional culture" or collective would pose a real problem. you would have a very difficult time convincing anyone who lived in a reality shaped by the rules built around the "delusion" that they are delusional. people like to think that ethical arguments would be enough--but if you think about it, and if you look at stuff like baumann talks about, you can see that they are not enough. people tend to like the rationalities they live under--they internalize the norms and rules, they live along them. it is really hard to talk folk out of living that way.

you meant this kind of scenario, yes?
(almost forgot to make a question at the end)

I am not defending religion. I think most religions are wrong, but the key is that *I* think that. Yet somehow I manage to keep my tone respectful when talking to those who do believe in their religion. I don't talk about eradicating their beliefs. I don't say they're ridiculous, or stupid, or any of the other vitriolic sputum that has been aired in this thread.

Nice try.



OK, you win. If you want to drag this thread down into the realm of silliness, so be it. No, the spaghetti monster cannot be proven to not exist. There's a lot of evidence that it doesn't - not the least being it is a work of fiction invented as a joke within the past 10 years - but yes, I will acknowledge that it is not possible to prove conclusively that there is no spaghetti monster somewhere in the universe, because it is not possible to prove a negative.

Correct. However I would point out that there is no billion-dollar organization (much less many billion dollar organizations) dedicated to the concept that the spaghetti monster exists. There is no long history of belief in the spaghetti monster, and there is no ancient text proclaiming the existance of a spaghetti monster, and there is no widespread belief or teaching about the spaghetti monster. In other words, it would be much more understandable were we to look askance at someone who genuinely believed in a spaghetti monster.

But to say that someone is ridiculous and stupid for essentially trusting their parents (after all we generally learn about god first from our parents), not to mention a huge percentage of the world's population, is way, WAY out of line.

That's a matter of debate. Religious people will tell you it was merely dictated to man by God.

And that is my point, which you seem to have missed. Until Yakk can conclusively prove that something which a large percentage of the world's population believes in is false, he should avoid calling them stupid. He should instead, frankly, sweeten his tone or shut the hell up. I am not objecting that Yakk does not believe in god. I am objecting to the rude, disrespectful, and hate-filled way in which he is expressing that disbelief.

Yes, but while the Michelson-Morley experiment proved conclusively that either there was no aether, or that the aether did not have the slow-down effect on light it had been assumed to have, the power of prayer experiments do not have sufficient controls to prove that prayer doesn't work. After all, maybe those who are praying, simply aren't doing it right.

If you want to talk dishonesty, then we have to look at Yakk's original premise. Yakk cannot prove that there is not a god, yet he dishonestly acts as though he, with his faith that there is no god, is superior to those who have faith that there is a god, because he is not being honest enough to admit that neither side is any more provable than the other.

No. I would be motivated to stop those who were hindering my life from hindering my life. And even the hinderers could continue to believe whatever they wanted, for all I care. I'm not interested in destroying their beliefs, as Yakk has claimed to be. But I expect the same courtesy to be extended my way. I won't destroy your belief, but don't even think about destroying mine.

It absolutely is, and I would certainly not stop them from doing so. It is, however, unreasonable to insult and attempt to destroy the beliefs of others.

1) light has recently been stopped in a laboratory. Before that it was slowed to 38mph. It is certainly possible to go faster than that.

2) We used to say it was impossible to go faster than the speed of sound, but then technology advanced and we figured out how to do it. It is entirely possible that hundreds of years from now we will figure out how to go from point A to point B faster than a light beam could get there.


that is all that I am faulting. His attitude is atrocious.


I understand his point of view. I think we all do. However we expect him to be respectful of other people's points of view.


Quite correct. But there are two kinds of atheists. Polite atheists, and atheists who act like jerks. I do not protest that Yakk is an atheist. I merely protest that he has not yet achieved the title of polite atheists.

I assure you, if a theist had told Yakk that he was a ridiculous idiot I would be jjumping on them as well. There is nothing wrong with expressing your beliefs. But some need to learn to express those beliefs without making insulting blanket statements about those who do not see things their way.

Yeah, that's Dawkins' hope too. Unfortunately he, like Yakk, needs to learn that you can, to borrow a phrase, convert more flies with honey than vinegar. You're certainly not going to win over the religious types by telling them they're stupid.


No, it isn't. They are supposed to preach the gospel, not slaughter the Indians for not believing in Jesus. They can preach all they want, but they're not allowed to oppress.

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...

They walk like a duck, they quack like a duck, they look like a duck.

I respect the beliefs of "whackjobs" who worship UFOs as much as a I respect the beliefs of Christians. I know more about the Christian whackjob beliefs, so in many cases their beliefs are more predictable (and hence less dangerous/scary).

I see no reason to respect Christian belief any more than UFO cultists. You don't seem to have any problem with insulting the beliefs of UFO cultists, yet you seem to have issues with me not respecting Christian belief.

I don't believe might makes right. Might makes might. Just because Christians have lots of power doesn't make them any more right than the UFO cultists are.

Which God do you want me to disprove, and what would be true about the features of the universe if the God existed?

I can invent a God and some consequences of that God, but I doubt it would satisfy you. Here goes:

The Lollypop God. It created the universe to produce Lollypops, and it rewards any intelligent being that makes Lollypops with luck.

To test for the existance of this God (which has consequences within the universe), one simply does a controlled experiment testing for "luck" between people who make Lollypops and people who do not.

To give you an example of a God that has no consequences:

Bob the God. Bob the God build the universe 10 seconds ago, in a state just as if it had existed for many millenia before. Bob the God never interacts with the universe after creation.

The existance of Bob the God has absolutely no consequences on the state of the universe. As such, Bob the God's existance cannot be tested for.

So the claim "Bob the God" exists is a claim without consequence in this universe. As such, I did not claim that I could disprove the existance of "Bob the God".

I'm not advocating we lock up people who have religious belief. I don't think we should kill people for having religious belief. I don't think that having religious belief makes you any less a citizen of a nation.

So I'm showing tolerance. I'm not showing acceptance.

In my experience, there are enough people who leverage the religious belief of others to cause harm to me that my reponse is "lets weaken the crazy cult".

I think they hold stupid beliefs. I don't hate them particularly.

Are you aware of the "Positivist" school of thought?

Suppose you have a statement S. Suppose that statement, if it was true, had a consequence C.

Now, it seems pretty reasonable that 'statements that have no consequence are pretty damn meaningless'.

But if S implies C, then if C is false so is S. So a statement, by having a meaning -- having a consequence if it is true -- becomes disprovable.

Ie, the disprovability of a statement is seemingly tied directly to the meaninfulness of the statement.

...

So the very fact that "God does not exist" is disprovable is saying "God does not exist" is a meaningful statement. It contains a prediction about what can and cannot happen.

The statement "God does exist", without any qualification on what you mean by God, lacks this property. It contains no predictions about what can and cannot happen, what can and cannot be experienced. It is, in a very fundamental way, meaningless.

Practically, people don't believe in that meaningless version of "God does exist". Their belief in God has meaning to them -- it justifies thoughts and actions.

A "belief" in "God exists" that justifies no thoughts, no actions, and has no consequences -- that is a belief that cannot be disproven.

It is a meaningless belief.

We try to test the speed of light barrier all the time -- every time someone puts pokes at things moving reasonbly quickly (like electrons). Every time someone uses physics to predict the behaviour of reality. Every particle accellerator.

BTW, the more precice statement of the light-speed barriers would be "it is impossible to accellerate past the speed of light" and "moving faster than the speed of light in two arbitrary frames is equivilent to time travel -- it can create a closed time-like curve".

We also try to test the non-existance of God all the time. "Hey God, want to show that I'm wrong? Not today? Ok."

No, I said "proven". I wasn't using quotes for emphasis, I was using quotes to mean "this word doesn't quite mean what it seems to mean".

My apologies -- I must not have been clear enough. Try rereading it. The word proven and the word "proven" are meant to refer to two slightly different meanings of the same word.

The absolute proof is different than the practical proof. Absolute proof is impossible in any situation -- for all you know, what you think is an absolute pure logical proof is actually nonsense, and somehow your brain is interpriting it as a perfect proof. What one really has to work with is various grades of practical proof.

Please avoid ad homeum attacks. Thank you.

If they are intelligent and kind, I'll respect them for it. If they also believe in some random crazy belief, I'll respect them less for their crazy belief.

When have I used the term faith? If you ascribe my thought the term faith, I guess I can survive. But my faith can be disproven. Just show me evidence of a God. I'm not that picky, any one of the thousands or millions of Gods out there will do. And after some testing, I hope I'll change my mind.

I take this as meaning "I am not actually reading what you are saying"?

I am not trying to disguise my lack of respect for religious belief. Those who choose to believe in a diety deserve less respect for that belief, as far as I am concerned. They may deserve respect for other things about themselves -- so the claim that I have an utter lack of respect for them is a lie.

Note that just saying that "Yakk is dead wrong" won't make it any more true. I'm perfectly willing to disagree with billions of people when they are wrong and I am not.

*nod*. So do you respect the beliefs of people who claim the world is 6000 years old, and that all of the scientists are lieing? What about those who hold that the earth was made to look older than it is?

When does the line get crossed, and you go from "crazy UFO cultists" to "non-crazy religious belief" -- is it an age thing? A person-count thing?

I'm curious where the line is.


Yes. And it doesn't perclude the invisible wolverine in the kitchen. I think that people who believe in invisible wolverines, the god of the bible, anamist spirits, some mysterious universal energy spirit all hold equally ridiculous beliefs.

Sure, I could be wrong. I could be disproven. If it happens, I hope I'll change my mind, and convert to worship of the flying spagetti monster, creator of the universe. Or the invisible pink unicorn. Or whatever other completely unexpected flavour of a God turns out to exist.

Sure. "I think you have a stupid belief -- your 'god delusion'. I respect that belief as much as I would respect a belief in an invisible pink unicorn, a flying spagetti monster, or a rabid undetectable kitchen wolverine. Do you have any reason to increase my respect for your belief?"

I've given examples where religious belief is hurting me.

Suppose I could offer concrete evidence that the Catholic Church is wrong. Would it be ok to ridicule belief in the Catholic Church's faith?

Note that evidence is much easier to generate than proof. I've made a lot of statements about the difficulty to absolutely prove the non-existance of god.

To provide evidence for the non-existance of god, that is damn easy. Because lack of evidence is evidence of absence.

My ridicule of someone else's religious beliefs won't stop them from having those religious beliefs.

Statistically, most of such torture was committed by nominal believers in a different absolute-truth faith system. Not that that is much evidence -- for most of human history, having a different absolute-truth faith system than your neighbours was not a good way to have a long and healthy life. :)

No.

I want to get rid of religion. I think it has caused more harm than good, and it will cause more harm than good. You don't agree -- acceptable.

But if you thought religion caused more harm than good, wouldn't my behaviour make sense?

You seem pretty negative about crazy UFO wonks.

You seem to consider their beliefs ridiculous. Please provide me a decent reason why I should consider Christianity any less ridiculous.

And there is lots of evidence that the Christian God does not exist.

Yes, the Christian cult is a rich cult.

Yes, the Christian cult is an old cult.

Things written down are not always true. When something is edited and gathered into an omnibus with things proven false, other things that are really questionable, and other things that are ridiculous, one would argue that they are not very likely to be true.

Yes, the christian cult is a large cult.

Yes, the Christian Cult currently has more social acceptance than the Spaghetti Monster cult does.

Yes, their parents passed down a stupid and ridiculous belief to their children. Rather sad that they would do such a bad thing to their kids, but it is possible that the parents didn't know any better.

Hopefully children can be protected better in the future.

Yes, the Christian cult is a large one.

I'm sorry. Just because many people believe something, doesn't make it any more true. If the earth moves, it moves, even if the entire world believes it doesn't move.

The existance of "God" is not a question of popularity.

How conclusively? Are we below the standard of absolute proof?

Providing non-absolute proof that there is no God, at say the level of confidence required to "disprove" a scientific theory, is damn easy.

How about no?

I don't hate people with stupid or crazy or ridiculous beliefs just because they hold their beliefs. I am sometimes afraid of them, I sometimes pity them, and I often find their beliefs ridiculous.

Sometimes, I hate the actions they take that they justify based on their beliefs.

If that is your standard of conclusive proof, then we have conclusive proof there is no God.

Because the aether could have been moving in a swirl that exactly cancelled out the effect they wanted to see, or millions of other hypothesis could be generated in order to make their experiment consistent with an aether that carried light.

But that would no longer have been the simplest explaination anymore. The hypothesis added to patch the aether back in would pretty much only predict the observations made in the experiment that inspired them. They would have no successful testable implications.

As such, they should be discarded, along with the aether hypothesis.

If you hold the God hypothesis to the same standard as the aether, it has been conclusively disproved.

Just like the aether experiments. The experiment might not have been set up right to detect the aether -- maybe the aether had different properties. You can explain away any observation in any case by tossing on enough ridiculous and stupid hypothesis to patch over your theory.

I can provide ridiculously strong proof that certain particular gods don't exist.

I can provide science-theory level proof that the god hypothesis should be discarded (ie, disproven).

I cannot provide absolute proof of anything.

I cannot provide nigh-absolute proof that a consequenceless god does not exist.

I have faith there is no God? Second time you've mentioned this. I'm sure there is a definition of faith that makes your statement work.

Second, are you calling me a lair? Back it up, shorty!

There is an asymetry between existance and not-existance. Are you aware of it?

What if I have a belief that your belief should be destroyed? (I'm not saying that I do, I'm just noting that your perfect tolerance must have limits)

So, what do you think of the beliefs of UFO cultists?
Faithful Catholics?
Pentacostals?
Suicide cultists?
Suicide bomber cultists?

If the common opinion of religion was that belief in it was stupid and backwards, do you think it would have any impact on the rate of religious transmission between generations?

Btw, the science-quality "proof" that God does not exist:

Hypothesis: God exists.

Implications of Hypothesis: None.

Conclusion: The God hypothesis implies nothing about the observed universe. As such, it is an unnessicary hypothesis to explain any observation.

Result: Discard (ie, consider disproven) the Hypothesis.

Well, we can start by not talking about wanting to eradicate religion. We can start by not saying they're stupid to believe in it.

I'm not worried about offense if the offense is caused by ideas. The Copernican model of the solar system was highly offensive to the church, and I'm fine with that. If Copernicus had, however, danced around yelling "you bunch'a damn jackasses! You're all stupid!" then I'd have looked on him as a social, if not complete, idiot.

If the offense is caused by being a jackass, it's another story.

You have to understand where the religious people are coming from here. I had the (from my perspective) advantage of having parents who, while they believed in god, didn't make a big deal out of it and never went to church.

But look at it from the perspective of someone who has been raised all their life to believe in god and the teachings of the church. You can have the smartest person in the world, but if they're raised from day one to believe in something, even if it's not true, it's going to be awfully hard to convince them otherwise.

Look at it another way. You have been raised all your life to believe that gravity is keeping you firmly attached to the earth. But what if gravity doesn't exist? What if instead it's electrical attraction at the atomic level that holds you to the planet? If I told you, right here, right now, that gravity doesn't exist, would you believe me? What if I said you're a moron for thinking gravity exists. Would that help to convince you?

Of course it wouldn't. And if you had been raised all your life, from day one, being told there was a god, you'd very likely believe in god right now unless you had at some point gotten around to questioning that belief.


No, not at all, and I'm not trying to establish credibility for any religion here. However, that history speaks to the likelihood that people will believe in it. The flying spaghetti monster wouldn't last very long as a religion because no one believes in it. Unless you're prepared to say that everyone that ever lived who believed in god was a moron (and that, by the way, includes Einstein, Hawking, Newton, Jefferson, Franklin, and most of the other great thinkers of history) then you have to acknowledge that it is *understandable* that people might believe in their religion.


We all have. But when I had that minority opinion I didn't march up to people holding the majority opinion and open my arguments by calling them stupid and ridiculous.

And rather than hurl insults at those who believed in a flat earth, intrepid explorers instead went out and proved that it wasn't. That is the challenge I gave to Yakk. Instead of just sitting there and insulting people, either go out and prove they're wrong, or keep your insults to yourself.

Not in and of themselves, but it does lend at least the semblance of credibility to the argument. For instance, if you were driving down a road, and 1 crazy looking guy with wild hair and twigs in his beard told you not to drive any further or you'd die, you'd probably ignore him. If 20 people told you not to drive any further because the road was washed out and you'd go over a cliff, you'd probably believe them - even if you didn't have concrete evidence that the cliff was there. In fact if you were smart you'd believe them enough to hedge your bets - you'd proceed as though there were a cliff there until offered direct evidence to the contrary.

Well here we have millions of people telling someone that if they don't believe in god they're going to be set on fire forever. It is not unreasonable that they hedge their bets and proceed as though that were true until offered direct evidence to the contrary.

No, but you're failing to think critically about this yourself. There are very powerful signs that god exists, if you're looking for them and you want to believe in god. I went on a hiking trip in the rockies once with a good friend, and she stopped halfway down a mountain trail, overlooking a valley of aspen with a sparkling lake in the middle, and told me that surely nothing this beautiful could be accidental. I of course disagreed, but I understood why such a sight would be a reinforcing sign that god does exist.

We all do that. We believe something and then search for evidence to prove our belief. The natural tendency is to discard or find fault with evidence that is contrary to our belief. It doesn't mean we're stupid - just that we're human.

It is not way out of line to QUESTION religious belief. It is way out of line to question religious belief by being a jerk. There's a big difference.

If you want to reason with someone, it is not wise to start by insulting them.


(I snipped a large part of your post because my response to it would have been redundant. This post is gonna be long enough as it is)

No, as I already explained, their religion tells them to preach the gospel. English teachers are instructed to teach english. That does not mean they have to come to your house and ram it down your throat, and it does not mean they have to get laws passed saying you MUST use proper grammar. You can preach the gospel without hindering anyone's life.


If you want to get into the comparitive jackass game, it's a pretty easy one to play. I can kill someone and claim it's not that bad because at least I didn't pull a Dahmer and eat them.



We are not in the position to conclusively prove that we cannot travel faster than light any more than Pa Ingalls could have conclusively proved we can't travel faster than the speed of sound.

Of course you can question. Do it nicely. It's really not that hard.



I already said in this thread that I would jump on them.

Yes, Dawkins has decided that anyone who isn't an athiest is a moron. Including agnostics. Dawkins also isn't exactly winning a lot of friends or converts with this approach.

True, but writing a book proclaiming there is no god will create plenty of controversy. Plus, Dawkins doesn't need to sell books - he's quite wealthy from the ones he's already sold.

You may be right, but does he want people to read his book or does he want to convince them to see things his way? Because even I, as an agnostic, was not swayed to his point of view - - but then I quit reading the book only a couple of chapters in because the guy's such an insulting jackass that I lost patience for him.

1) I'm not trying to convince the UFO believers that there aren't any UFO's.

2) I'm not asking you to respect the christian belief. I'm asking you to respect the individuals who believe it.


Do you want to be right, or do you want to win? You can be a jerk about it all you want (and calling their beliefs stupid is being a jerk about it) but approaching it that way is not going to convince very many, if any, people that you're right and religion is wrong.


I would ask the same of you. Please stop insulting people just because they're religious.

But see that's my point. It may be a crazy belief from your perspective, but it certainly isn't random. They didn't just witch this idea up out of the back of their minds one day. There's absolutely NOTHING random about people in society believing in religion.


You didn't use that term. but you do have faith in the nonexistance of god. Since you can't prove god's nonexistance, you must take it on faith that he does not exist.

But until that evidence arises your faith has not been proven or disproven and is therefore in the same boat as religion.

No, it means you can toss in this idiotic spaghetti monster crap all you want and it won't change the fact that you're being rude to the religious people.

I do not agree with those beliefs. I feel those beliefs are wrong. But I, apparently unlike you, understand that if you have been taught, or if you prefer brainwashed, since you learned to talk, that these things are true, that it is quite understandable that you would believe in them.
If you could, and you got that information out to the people, then yes, I wouldn't have a particular problem with you saying it's ridiculous for people to believe in that which has been proven wrong. I don't have a problem with someone saying members of the flat earth society are ridiculous. It's been proven conclusively time and again that the earth is round.

Now, take up the challenge. Prove the catholics are wrong, or stop ridiculing them.

Do you not see that calling religious people ridiculous, and saying their religion is stupid, is not the best way to endear them to your point of view, and is therefore unlikely to help you accomplish your goal?


No. See above.


All of these acknowledgments merely prove my point. While the actual belief may or may not be stupid, it is understandable that people would believe in it, and it does not necessarily mean they are stupid for doing so.

No, it couldn't have. They eliminated that possiblity with the way their experiment was designed.
I'm all ears.
and I've already explained those limits - believe anything you want, but when your beliefs start infringing on my rights, we have a problem.

As long as they're not harassing or hurting me, they can believe in anything they want. I really don't care.

Harsh as it sounds, that's their perogative. As long as it's a suicide cult and not a homicide cult, then they can do what they want.

Here clearly we have an infringement of others' rights.


Probably not. After all the jews were not only told their religion was wrong, they were told by the Nazis that they could, and probably would, die for it. Didn't stop them from believing. What are your "stupid and silly" arguments when put up against the gas chambers?


Nice try, but that isn't science quality at all. Get that peer reviewed and you'll be laughed out of the room. In the first place your b section is faulty. The implications of a deity are many, not the least of which is the possibility that we will continue to exist in some way after we die.

In the second, no true scientist would consider a hypothesis disproven simply because he couldn't think of something that would be effected by its truth. Otherwise I could hypothesize that the sky is blue, and if I were unable to come up with any implications of that hypothisis, you would then declare that the sky is not blue. Rather silly, don't you think?

Okay, I think I see what you're thinking, here. I still think it's a difficult thing to do. For instance, you obviously want to avoid pejoratives but suppose you say that their religion is a delusion. A lot of people are going to take offense to that. I'm not saying they're delusional and the word is not an insult. However, there's no way to get around the implication that they're delusional and many will take it as an offense, despite that I honestly think they've fooled themselves into believing something that makes little sense. I can tell you that I don't know what your stance on this is going to be...

Why can't "getting around to questioning that belief" start now?

I agree that insults wouldn't help but they wouldn't hinder me, either. Don't worry, I understand that I'm peculiar this way. Another peculiarity of mine is that it wouldn't insult me if you said that the belief in gravity were stupid, rather than simply saying that I am...

I was raised a devout christian, even going to bible school both days of the weekend, every weekend. I understand the power of indoctrination but I'm not sure I understand the offense. My atheist friends in late high school would ridicule religion with arguments that I could not deny. Despite this, it took me a while to admit to myself that I don't believe. I'll tell you what I didn't do. I didn't make shit up. Some of the arguments I've heard for religion are simply lame.

Would it surprise you to learn that if you can show me how my belief in gravity was stupid and present a better theory to me then I would throw out my belief in gravity in a heartbeat. In fact, I would be eager to dispell current notions of gravity in favour of the better one. In case you didn't realize, this has happened, already...

What sets atheism apart from religion is faith, or the lack, thereof. This is a subject that keenly interests both Dawkins and Harris. Faith is the ability to believe what you want despite reality. Is it any wonder that it is touted as a virtue in religion?

It's utterly irrelevant to the topic but, since you brought it up, let me point out that your list of religious "great thinkers" is largely apocryphal. By the way, when you say "Franklin," do you mean Rosalind Franklin?

It's only "understandable" in the statistical sense. I can understand why Newton was religious for the same reason I can understand why Lincoln and Gandhi were deeply racisit. It's because it was exceedingly bizarre to be anything else at the time.

Besides, do you see no difference between saying the belief in religion is "stupid" and saying religious people are stupid?

How can I respond to this? You're really hung up on this whole "proof" thing. Let me tell you, I don't need "proof." Proof is too high a burden. Just give me something even vaguely reasonable and I will believe. However, there isn't even that yet people still continue to believe...

Yeah, I honestly didn't need the highway example. Obviously, popularity lends some credibility but... not much. I suppose if you've never seen a whole swath of people be wrong then it may be more convincing but... surely these people notice the other religious people who believe something rather different? They're not both right so that's a fine example of a great number of people who believe something that's "clearly" false. How is this possible? Apply it to yourself and you will know!

I've brought this up, before. I think I called it "false association." What does beauty have to do with God? That doesn't follow. Can't a garden be beautiful without there being fairies at the bottom of it, too?

Yes, if you look hard enough then I suppose you can convince yourself of anything. In which case, I would say that you're looking too hard. Again, this demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills. Instead of looking for what you want, why don't you look at what is? What's with the denial?

I agree that it is a human trait. However, what is it when someone points out that you are doing exactly this and suggests how you may desist this behaviour and you metaphorically stick your head in the sand and continue the way you were? We have human tendencies but with training and, more importantly, with each other's help, we can overcome this. I'm a computer programmer and if I continued this attitude of only seeing what I wanted to see, I would never get anything done...

Don't "slipery slope" me. Even in our society, if the worst thing you ever do is insult someone with words, that's not too bad.

I vehemently disagree but this is rather far off topic.

Okay, so I'm beginning to see that you make no distinction between insulting one's religion and insulting them...

You're probably right about the money but his attitude certainly gives him more notoriety. While you, personally, weren't swayed by his protestations, if I were to judge by this thread, you are particularly sensitive to such "insults." Everyone else seem to feel free to debate the issue. Again, no one's behaviour has degenerated to calling anyone here an idiot. All he wants to do is get people thinking. Despite his apparent attitude, he strikes me as optimistic...

The last time I offended some bible boys (on the internet...in RL I have learned to keep my mouth shut, some of the bible crowd are really mean) I tried to politelty pussy-foot around with my words, in an effort to be respectful and all.....but in the context of the debate we were having, the best I could honestly come up with was ......imo....people who believe in imaginary beings and places are "a little nutty".
I truely believe you gotta cross some kind of mental line if you are actually going to come out and proclaim you believe something that has not one single shred of REAL scientific evidence/proof, after ALL these years of people trying to prove it. I guess I don't have the "predisposed to believe in religion" gene. :wave:
It's my personal opinion that 50% of the so called "religious" are really non committed folk who just go along with religion to look good to others, relieve their stress, and keep their options open just in case there is an afterlife. Many people see all the positive social benefits years of religion has built into our world and figure *what have I got to lose*...I'll just go along with it just in case they are right. That's why I think atheism needs a new name/image....a positive image, to get humans back to reality and save our world by doing the right thing, not the religious thing. :hyper: :o

Well....anyway, the bible boys held their anger at me and my words for a day or two...but finally exploded. :| I ended up telling one he had his head up his ass, which was unusual for me on a message board I had been to for years.....and I've never gone back there again. Ugh! :cringe: It was ugly. Pissed me off royally too....

You can try to make this chasm of difference all pretty and nice....but there's a point where the religious nut jobs (and unfortunately, there are so many of them out there) get whacky. Atheists really need to step up more now, and be a proud of their intelligent beliefs....in a "nice up to a point" way....:p :lol: Actually though, I see this beginning to happen. :thumbsup:

Say it loud "I don't believe in god and I'm proud"....thank-you James Brown....:)

only problem with that, is God knows the difference and its not going to "get them anywhere"

If people wanna consider me ridiculous, stupid, silly or a nut job I honestly dont care. I dont consider athiests any of those things and I dont lose repsect for them as a person because they dont believe as I do. Judgement is not MY job.

I think it's nice that your religious beliefs make you happy....:)

I've never met the religious person who has fooled himself into believing in god. If indeed they are fooled (for remember, we cannot prove that god does not exist and therefore it is possible, however unlikely you and I believe it to be, that they are right) then they have been fooled by others. No one wakes up one day never having read or heard of the bible, never having been to church, never having been told about religion by anyone, and suddenly comes up with Christianity again all by himself.

If you use phrases like delusional, and fooled yourself, and ridiculous, you aren't going to convince very many people. State your case. I don't believe in god and here's why. THAT might get them thinking and questioning, but if you come straight out and insult them (because insulting their religion with pejoratives as has been done many times in this thread IS insulting them - that's how deeply intertwined their faith is with their view of themselves) then you won't accomplish anything except possibly to piss them off. Pissed off people are not going to be in the right frame of mind to question themselves or their beliefs at all.

It can - but if they're busy concentrating on how upset they are over what a jerk you've been to them, they're not going to get around to it any time soon.


And yet you seem to profess a lack of understanding over how religious people can possibly not be questioning their religion.


Not at all - but it would surprise me if I hurled insults at you and your belief and your first response was "holy crap you're right! How did I not see it!"

Plus keep in mind that you do not love gravity. Religious people actually LOVE god and Jesus - whether they exist or not. You're certainly not going to overcome their notions by insulting someone they love.


I disagree. You have to realize that religion explains reality. If religion is made up then whoever made it up was a psychological master. Not only did they come up with the whole god thing, but they anticipated people like you coming along and built in the "god is testing you" bit. See "reality" that conflicts with your belief? No problem, it's a test. Can you pass it? You and I may not agree with this concept (after all if god is all knowing he should not have to test anything - you only test that which you are unsure of. I do not wake up and cower in bed gingerly testing the environment to insure that when the covers come off I won't float away because gravity doesn't exist. I know it does) however just because someone hasn't thought of this or doesn't agree with it does not necessarily mean they are stupid or delusional.


Ben, actually


What I see doesn't matter. It's what they see that does. Religion is not just something they read about and maybe accept as truth like you would a science book or a political essay. Religion is part of them. Their entire being is deeply intertwined with religion. Insult religion, and you insult them.

What is unreasonable to one man is totally reasonable to the next.

Depends on who you talk to. The hindus, first off, believe that there are many paths to paradise, and all of them are correct. Others believe that they are fortunate in being exposed to the one true religion. Does it make sense? No, not really, not to us anyway - but the thing to realize is that it makes sense to them, and it really doesn't hurt YOU if they believe in god as long as they don't try to push their beliefs intrusively onto your life.

Of course it's false association, but if you're looking for evidence to support your claim you might not realize it is.

If that someone has politely brought up arguments and you flat out refuse to even consider their point, then yes, that's your fault. If however, that person has insulted you and what you believe in then it is psychologically understandable that you would not consider what they had to say. I don't pay attention to jerks either. I would not expect it of religious people.


No, in the grand scheme of things it's not. But if you want a given result, and a surefire way to not get to that given result is to insult someone, is it really smart to insult them? Thinking critically, I'd have to say no.


That's right - because there is no distinction. Religion is a large part of who many people are.

Shanifaye and I don't agree on a whole lot throughout the forum, but she thanked me for my initial post telling Yakk off. That tells me he annoyed at least one person in here.

If you are called a fool for something that not only you believe in but that is a core aspect of who you are, then it is completely predictable that you will not be thinking about the truth of that aspect. You'll be too busy thinking about what a jerk this guy is.

It's disingenuous to run around insulting people and then expecting those insults to make them change their entire outlook on existence. That, not belief in religion, is what is ridiculous here.

And that is their problem, not mine.

Yes, it is understandable that people have stupid and ridiculous beliefs. I am aware of the many ways people can gain such ridiculous beliefs. It doesn't mean I find the beliefs any less ridiculous.

I'm willing to reason with people who hold ridiculous beliefs. I've even said that I don't always tell people that their beliefs are ridiculous. But reason clearly isn't enough. So long as religious belief is held up as a virtue, people will pretend to have it and/or seek to have it.

It isn't a virtue. It is a flaw.

So they preach the gospel, and tell me that I'm going to hell. I say that their beliefs are ridiculous. Under their belief system, they think I deserve to be burned for eternity.

So, why again is my attitude the problem?

But if your kill is Dahmer, your comparative jackass game works.

Hmm. Random question: do you value truth, or your own well being, higher?


But you don't seem to have any problems insulting their belief system. Is this correct? You find it acceptable to consider the "whackjob" UFO cultists to be whackjobs?

Respect is earned and lost. If they have done other things that would earn them respect, they get respect for that. If they have a christian belief, they lose respect for that.

I can respect a christian without respecting her beliefs. I can even respect the christian LESS because of her beliefs, and still respect her.

Win? You mean, elimiate all religous belief? But I thought "you are not trying to convert UFO cultists"... Hmm.

Are you saying that "I want to destroy and eliminate the power of religion, I just don't want to say that, because I think telling people that will reduce my ability to destroy and eliminate the power of religion"?

I'm sorry, but I value truth more than I value this particular victory.

I'm well aware that many if not most religious people will hold onto their ridiculous religious beliefs in the face of anything short of severe trama.

They are wrong because they are religious. Their wrongness is a not-good thing that takes away some of my respect for them. What again is the problem with this?

Ad homeium attacks are when you say "this person is a git, therefor they are wrong". Saying "you have a ridiculous belief" is not an ad homeium attack.

My use of "random" is colloquial. As in "a sample of for which the distribution and details of the object don't matter".

There are many different crazy beliefs -- which one you hold (flying spagetti monster, UFO cultists, pentacostals) doesn't matter to me. They are equivilent.

Prove that one must have faith to believe that god does not exist.

I don't believe in the existance of God. You don't believe that I have a million dollar gold-plated chair in my apartment, but saying that you have faith in that belief is a pretty broad use of the term "faith".

No, it is not.

You consider the spaghetti monster belief to be crap?! My god, you are being disrespectful of a ridiculous belief system!

Know how you would feel about someone who believed in the spaghetti monster? I suspect I find people who believe in the christian diety a bit less ridiculous than that.

Sure, it is understandable that they hold that ridiculous belief. Where in the world did you get the idea that I didn't understand why people have stupid and ridiculous beliefs?

The flat earth theory has not been proven wrong, not in any absolute sense. All it would take is something ridiculous, like space warps, some turtles, and an invisible pink unicorn, and the earth can be flat.

What are your standards of proof?

Absolute? Mathematical? Scientific? Implicative?

You don't have to be stupid to hold stupid beliefs. I have claimed this multiple times, yet you keep putting words in my mouth that I am not claiming and I am not saying.

I can understand why someone would commit rape. It doesn't make the act any less evil.

I can understand why someone would hold religious beliefs. It doesn't make the belief itself any less ridiculous.

Understanding does not mean acceptance.

No, they did not elimiate all such possibilities. The pattern of aether movement required would be ridiculously complex to generate the observations. But for any observation, there is a ridiculously complex explaination for it -- and there are simpler explainations.

Under the standards of science, when you have a simpler explaination and a ridiculously complex explanation, you assume the simpler explaination unless the complex explaination provides more predictive power.

I was asking you a particular question. Do you consider religious belief to be ridiculous? Do you consider UFO cultists belief to be ridiculous? When you insulted the beliefs of UFO cultists, what exactly did you mean by the insult?

Sure, it needs fleshing out. And no journal worth it's salt would be stupid enough to accept a paper that disproved the existance of God.

Btw, when you speak about Science, what are you referring to? Kuhnesque or Popperesque?

None of those implications exist within the experimental bounds (the universe).

If it makes you feel any better, let's do the IPU hypothesis.

Hypothesis: All physics is at the whim of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I was implying I could prove there are no implications. A diety of infinite knowledge and power can do anything, so any observation whatsoever is consistent with the dieties existance.

Do you agree with that? That if a God as described exists, anything you observe is consistent with that Diety's existance. The Diety could be ineffibly making it look like she doesn't exist.

Accept that, and then the existance of God has no implications.

If the existance of the Diety implies X, that means "Not X implies not Diety". But, as noted, the diety is consistent with any observation, thus the existance of the Diety implies nothing at all.

"There is a God", in it's broadest sense, is as meaningful as "The Quork is wibble wabble."

Can you prove there are no implications to your hypothesis? If so, then you should declare that your hypothesis is wrong.

Every such hypothesis about God that has been tested has come up with "the God hypothesis is an unnessicary complication" when a serious attempt is made on it. It isn't nessicary to explain anything -- so, scientifically, the hypothesis is disproven.

You do understand that for any observation or set of observations, you can build an infinitely complex system that is consistant with the observations. Every observation can have a new tacked-on modification.

I actually hate gravity. It keeps me down!

Not everyone is that far gone. There is very little chance that people that far gone will manage to free themselves, regarless of what I say. There is statistical evidnce that most people who identify with a religious belief don't hold it nearly that strongly.

If all I managed to do is reduce the religious believers to a small splinter sect, like UFO nutjobs are today, that is a start.

I understand there are many causes that lead one to be a UFO nutjob, or a believer in the Christian God, or a believer in Akido ju ju, that the FBI has bugged your molars, or many other delusions.

But the beliefs are still delusional and ridiculous. It is sad that people are infected by these ridiculous delusions. I wish, for their sake, they found the strength to free themselves of them.

Those that have the worst cases are nearly hopeless -- as I've mentioned, it would take some quite serious trama to give them a chance to shake free. Those with weaker strains of religious belief infection might be able to break free with less trama.

If they break free, that makes me respect them more than if they stay infected.

While the causes behind why someone has a certain mental beliefs and habits can be understood, understanding does not excuse your beliefs. You are responsible for your beliefs. If you have evil beliefs, that is your responsibility. If you have ridiculous beliefs, that is your responsibility. I have no obligation to respect your evil or ridiculous beliefs.

Neither is it my responsibility to remove evil or ridiculous beliefs from your belief system.

I do feel an obligation to let people know which beliefs I think should be considered evil, and which beliefs I believe should be considered ridiculous.

I have no expectation that this will cause all of the misguilded folk in the world to throw up their hands and accept my one true belief. I fully expect many people to hold on to their ridiculous and evil beliefs. This is acceptable, but they are still responsible for their own beliefs.

These posts are getting entirely too long, so you'll excuse me I hope if I cut out a bunch of stuff from yours and only answer the stuff that really popped out at me.

Both.




First off, I was making a point. Second, assuming I was trying to convert UFO believers into non-believers, my first step would not be to march into a place where I KNEW the UFO believers to be and start insulting them.

No, I'm saying that YOU have said YOU want to eliminate the power of religion. OK. Fine. If that's what you really want, you're going about it in a very stupid way. To change their beliefs, you must win the religious people over. You're not going to do that by starting off the conversation accusing them and their beliefs of being ridiculous.


In that case, as you have mentioned, no one can ever know the truth. Until that changes (and it won't) stop insulting people who have no more absolute knowledge of the truth than you do.

The problem is that you just don't know if they're wrong or not. There's no way of knowing for sure. Hell for all we know we're all just some simulation running on some immensely powerful computer system. We don't know, and we won't ever know. And since we can't truly know, it would behoove us not to look down our noses at others who don't truly know just because they don't happen to believe in the unknowable thing that we believe in.



I think you're confused here. I was accused by KM of making an ad hominem attack. I never accused you of it.





Because you cannot prove that god does not exist. Therefore you must take it on faith that your conclusions are correct.

If it were a religious belief system, then I would be guilty of that.

I don't think it's ridiculous, no. I don't think something has to be ridiculous just because I don't personally believe in it.

I would have to take the individual who believes it on a case by case basis to answer that. If he just dreamed it up, then maybe it's ridiculous. If he's been told all his life by all his relatives and all his friends that UFO's exist and they're going to come take him away to paradise, then that's not quite as ridiculous.

I'm not interested in the religious people, they can think what they want, who cares! :crazy: I'm interested in other atheists. :) Atheism is a wonderful thing, it needs to become more than zero. Come out of the closets! Subscriptions to Discover magazine to all!! :hyper: :cool:

Ok...back to the old god/no god thing.....:dead: ;)

Im beginning to see that Atheists are as closed and narrow minded as believers are some times accused of. Im so glad the atheists I know in real life dont behave like y'all do and just respect an "interest" in things other than their "beliefs", because some of you do a real good job at not making yourselves desirable as companions

I need my subscription renewed, in 2009...
ShaniFaye, you've surely read enough of my nonsense to forgive me?

Then I'll come back to this thread. :thumbsup:

Atheism is simply a label that describes people that are not one thing: a theist. While the reasoning behind taking this position on existence varies, it hardly means that you must no longer respect theists. This is where Dawkins and I seem to separate. I could not disrespect my family and friends because they happen to be theists. I can think someone is misguided or has a different perception of our world without attacking them outright and challenging them at every turn. While I obviously have the ability to argue to no end about a million different things, theism being one of them, I find that doing so is only appropriate under very specific and controlled circumstances, the most important of circumstances being mutual respect (as you can see in my discussion with Filtherton in the other atheism thread). Once that respect dissolves, so also dissolves any meaning or possibility of a peaceful and mutually acceptable outcome.

One of the most important lessons that the TFP can teach is that with mutual respect comes positive growth. It's something to bear in mind whether you're talking about Lost in Entertainment, the FCC in Politics, or Atheism in General Discussion.

see willravel....I have no problem with the WAY you have presented anything you've said (in either thread)even though I dont agree with it lol....Im glad you came back lol

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...

I was referring to Lizra's statement in only being interested in other atheists. And silly as it *might* sound to someone, even if I dont care about something I can still be annoyed at yakk's condescending manner and his overuse of the word ridiculous and his statement that his respect for a person is lowered if they persist in believing in God. A person's personal religious belief or lack thereof is not a factor in respect for that person IMO.

It's just us here, people! Not to disrupt this "conversation"!

You're right, it does sound silly to me. If what Yakk says annoys you then you must care, at least a little, about what he's saying. Then again, if you can reconcile religion with reality then surely you can reconcile this small dichotomy...

As a theist, what do you think an unoffensive way to say that "religious belief is ridiculous" might be? I think shakran would call that an insult but I disagree. You said that you like how willravel debates the issue but he's used the word "irrational" to describe religious faith in this very thread. Do you consider that word less offensive than "ridiculous?"

I believe I said his overuse of the word and I said it was the way he presented what he said, not his opinion that its stupid or ridiculous. Sorry if the difference silly to you, but thats just the way it is.

OK. I've tried to be nice, and it's not working, so I want you to read this part of the post very, very carefully. I am not trying to prove that there is or is not a god. I am not telling you that you have to prove that there is or is not a god. I am saying that if you cannot PROVE your position, you should not be a JERK to those who disagree with you. It's another way of saying "Stop being a damn jerk" without being so blunt about it.

I don't have an obsession with proving that there's a god, especially since I have significant doubts that there is one.

Well, from where I sit, calling religion ridiculous is asinine. Until you can provide concrete evidence that you are right in YOUR belief, then it's absolutely jawdroppingly stupid of you to say that someone else's well established and ingrained belief is ridiculous. That's not to say they're right. You don't have to think they're right. But try putting it more intelligently. "I don't think you're right about God" is much less of an asshole thing to say than "Your religion is ridiculous."

Try "I don't believe in god, and here's why." Gee, you might even get people to listen to you instead of concentrating on how pissed off you made them if you did that.


I don't believe in god. I have issues with some of the stories in the bible. For example. . . .

See how that invites dialogue a lot more than "everything you believe is ridiculous?"


Maybe they don't want to. Who cares? Not your problem. Live your life, not theirs. Athiests love to bitch to high. .er. . heaven about how the christians want to impose their horrible god beliefs on everyone else. Well, the door swings both ways. Practice what you preach. It's fine not to believe in god. But quit trying to convert the masses lest you become guilty of the same bullshit you accuse them of.

That's admirable. Not everyone is built like you. And even if they did listen to you despite hurling insults at them, doesn't mean it's OK to hurl insults at them.

My apologies. That was Yakk, not you. I can't keep this thread straight anymore ;)

Well, don't worry. I'm not the kind of guy who stops being nice merely because the other speaker isn't. That's just the kind of guy I am...

I'd hate to think that you spent all this time dancing around the message "stop being a damn jerk." There's nothing wrong with being blunt and asking others to not be jerky is far from rude...

This is why I said you're "obsessed" with "proof." I'm not saying you're obsessed with proving God exists (since you don't even particularly believe), I'm saying that you're obsessed with the necessity of proof.

If someone thought that there was a teapot in orbit (not on Earth) around the sun, I would call that ridiculous. Moon hoax proponents are ridiculous. I cannot prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun and I can't prove the moon landings weren't faked but it's not inappropriate to call these beliefs ridiculous. I don't think these statements are insults, either. Is your contention that religion is such a sensitive topic that one must "sweeten" their tone beyond ordinary discourse?

These examples do sound a lot less confrontational but they also seem understated. "I don't believe" sounds very conciliatory, which I suppose is the point. How about "I think there's no reason to believe in God and here's why?" Would you consider this less offensive?

I thought we went over this? A lot of atheists would love to "live their lives" if only the deeply religious would let them. People proselytizing is less offensive to me than lobbying the government to fund religious activities. If all theists ever did was try to convert me, it wouldn't be the heated debate that it is. The door does not swing both ways. Unfortunately, it is my problem and if I bitch, it's only because I'm given plenty to bitch about...

You miss the point entirely. I was merely questioning why you'd say "it would surprise me if I hurled insults at you and..." after being told how ineffectual insults are to me. It just seemed odd... In fact, your response here seems queer considering the context. Here's what you edited out, underlined:The important part is in bold. I tell you that I'm unique but you turn around and remind me that "not everyone is built like me." I tell you at the very end what the point of that paragraph is and you ignore it...

I understand that there has been a lot said by a number of people in this thread...

Well actually I was that blunt with Yakk days ago.


Yes. When you have a well established concept that people have believed in for millenia, I do think it would be awfully nice if you'd have some sort of evidence to back up your side before you trash theirs. You can bring up all the silly BS examples of modern hoaxes and paranoid conspiracy theories, but when you get right down to it there is a difference between that and well-established religion. A difference I'm sure you're praying I don't point out. People who believe in god aren't generally doing it because it's cool, or because they're making it up, or because they're nuts. They have, in their mind, very good reasons for their belief. An atheist who whines about religious intolerance has absolutely no right to be intolerant of religion. You can try to draw comparisons between belief in religion and belief in martians if you wish, but you and I both know that no one here is going to be fooled. You may as well give up that line of attack. It's not gonna work.

Why is "I don't believe" conciliatory. You're saying you don't buy in to what they're telling you is the truth. That is not conciliatory. Unless you define conciliatory as "not being a jerk," then you're off base here.

It's essentially the same thing I said.


Yeah, I thought we went over it too. If a deeply religious person is trying to infringe on your rights, then go after THAT PERSON. Not everyone who happens to have the misfortune of having you find out he believes in god.

I didn't ignore it. I reiterated it. So you're unique. Great. Others aren't quite so forgiving in their willingness to consider your thoughts when your words are so abrasive.

I think a lot is being revealed, here.

You indicated, earlier, that you didn't like these analogies and you're saying that again, here. You say that this "line of attack" is not going to work and I'm inclined to agree with you since... it's not working. However, I don't understand why you pretend that I know what you're talking about and then not reveal the big secret "I'm praying you don't point out?" What's with the melodrama? This is supposed to be a message board of mature discourse. Talk to me! What's the distinction? They're both just as unreasonable and perfectly analogous. If you know how they are different, why won't you just say it? It would certainly help quell my incredulity over religion...

I understand that no amount of reasoning will convince the faithful. That's what faith is for. All we can hope to do is plant seeds. Some may be convinced. Other's may think about it, later. Maybe my words are utterly ineffectual. However, I'm not sure I can pretend that religion makes any sense just because I think the debate is futile...

That's just the impression it gives me. If you think "I think this is unreasonable" is unoffensive, I can live with that. Of course, I can't speak for the other atheists in this thread...

What if an institution is infringing upon my rights? How would you feel about my going after that institution? It can be argued that I only have a problem with organized religion. Would that make you feel better?

This is getting a little off topic but I'll go for it. You didn't reiterate my point. My point was not that I'm unique, which is what you reiterated. My point was that you'd be surprised and that made no sense, which is what you ignored. I understand that the religious aren't as forgiving (ironically); that's what makes me unique...

I'm not sure how I offended you (or if I did)....sorry.....but, I am not interested in arguing about god/no god with believers. I didn't think that was the topic of this thread....but maybe I'm wrong.
The evidence (or lack of ;) ) on this is out there....make your choice....enjoy. If you choose to believe, have a nice day, :rose: but I'm moving on. I'm interested in discussion with the people who think like me. :thumbsup: :cool: More, more, more! :wave:
I have friends and neighbors who believe, there is no disrespect on my part. BUT...if they start talking about their religious beliefs for more that a few sentences, I'm gone.... from boredom, and the desire to not waste my time on something I consider fictional. I have given too much time/thought/energy to religion already in my life, and don't want to waste another precious moment. I would like to spend time furthering and celebrating atheism. It's a great cause. :)

I think it's a pretty relevant personal opinion on whether or not someone finds a another's personal characteristics to be respectful or not. I'm glad that for you, a person's religion/lack of, is not. :)

For example, though, a person who is extremely christian may very well have no respect for a person they meet who says they worship satan. Many people in this country, especially in some certain areas more than others, are still disrespected for being Jewish. I think we all make judgments based on a variety of things, and losing respect based on religious affiliation/lack of is just another one of those factors that we could use.

While I don't agree with that line of thinking, and I don't lower my respect for a person based on their religion or lack thereof, It's still common enough that for some, the depth of their religious convictions makes them feel like there is nothing to respect in a person if their religion (or lack of) is not agreeable.

I would think that's a pretty shallow way to judge a person, and unreasonable to cast aside a person's respect just because they're religion X or not religious at all, but everyone has their opinion and some feel very strongly about their religious beliefs.

Now, if I found out there was a religion that sacrificed babies or virgins or did something similarly insidious, then I would not have respect for that person- but that would mainly focus on the fact that their religion is, literally, making them a murderer... and not just that it's religion X.

(Side note: having said that, consider that to some people, any religion/lack of that allows abortion is a religion/lack of that condones killing babies. Think about it.)

For me personally, I lose a little respect for anyone that follows any religion blindly, only because that's not the point of any faith. The reason is that I find it unreasonable for any person to follow a religion like a mindless lemming. If you do that, I can't understand how you can truly say you belong to the faith if you're just going through the motions. This, however, would be a *tiny* amount of lost respect, and It wouldn't change my opinion of them enough to change the way in which we interact, at all. If anything, it would make me curious and want to learn more about them so I can understand their opinion, and restore that respect.

You get a prize for not answering the question! Do you prefer licorish or chocolate?

It was a simple question. You attacked me for shoveling UFO believers and Christians into the same category, and called UFO believers "whackjobs".

It is a want. It is not my all consuming focus in life.

No, that is not the only way to contribute to the loss of religious belief. I do not believe I am capable of freeing every human from their problems.

Having a conversation with someone is not the only way to convince them they are wrong. There are millions of ways to erode away the religious infection. Freeing souls lost to religious infections one-by-one in heart-to-heart talks -- that isn't the only way.

The impossibility of absolute knowledge is a testament not to the pointlessness of knowledge and truth, but the ridiculousness of the absolute requirement.

I do not know in the absolute sense, in the way that I don't know anything absolutely. I don't know absolutely that raping babies is evil, but I still know that raping babies is evil. Read that over twice if you have to.

Absolute knowledge isn't a requirement of action.

I asked you not to make an ad hominem attack, not KM.

If you define faith that broadly, it is meaningless. You must have faith that the sun came up yesturday, you must have faith that your mind exists, you must have faith that there isn't a howling void outside of your door and that opening it is safe.

The impossibility of absolute knowledge does not mean that all knowledge is faith -- if you hold that to be true, then the word "faith" means nothing at all.

I object when someone takes a word, and broadens it to meaninglessness. As such, I quite reject your definition of faith, and all arguements that fall from it, as having any meaning.

If you can come up with a reasonable definition of faith that isn't useless, please do so.

How is the FSM belief system not a religious belief system? Is it because it is less popular than other belief systems?

Ah, it is popularity that matters. You object to my attacking a belief system because it is socially transmitted.

As noted, I understand that religion is often a socially transmitted infection. I'm aware that people are a product of their history -- argueably, people are nothing more than a product of their history. Dispite this, people are not free of responsibility for their beliefs.

I hold each and every person responsible for their actions and beiefs. I understand that their actions and beliefs have causes outside of themselves, but that does not mean that they are not responsible for their own actions and their own beliefs.

Understanding why they have such a belief, or do such an action, does not excuse it. Seeing that I would have their belief, or do such an action, in the same situation does not excuse it.

If one is not responsible for beliefs that where the result of your environment, one is responsible for nothing. This is evidence that the term "responsible" is being used incorrectly -- it has been broadened into meaninglessness. My response to a term being broadened into meaninglessness is to reevaluate the broadening, and find a useful meaning for the word consistent with it's colloquial meanings.

So I know people are raised catholic, and believe it because they are patterning their life after their parents. This provides me with information on how to break the pattern of religious infection. It does not mean that people are not responsible for their beliefs.

Some are. :)

I respect lots of things about lots of people. In this thread, I'm only talking about religious belief and the lack thereof.

I do throw in the "I can respect people even if I don't respect one of their beliefs" from time to time, but that isn't the focus of the thread's arguements. I usually throw that out when people accuse me of hating or lacking any respect for people who have religious beliefs.

I can have respect for them, but I would have more if they lost the religious belief.

I don't challenge people at every turn. I am having a debate in this thread, in which my opinions about religious belief are being attacked.

I can respect someone less because of their religious belief and still respect that person.

Does nobody have a good friend that they love and that they think has a serious problem? Can they not love and respect their friend, yet wish their friend didn't have that serious problem?

Most people I interact with socially (well over half) are believers or one degree or another. They know I find their beliefs ridiculous, and they know that I love and respect them as people. One does not have to love and respect every single feature of someone in order to love and respect a person.

I respect your respect of other's religious beliefs. It is quite likely a good, wise and smart belief.

I hold a different belief, one that you have no reason to respect. I can accept this. :)

I'm using ridiculous regularly because it was my original descriptive. Changing up adjectives to something equivilent might make better prose, but it would fuzzy the waters (do I mean something different in this particular case or not?)

Would it be better if I used another word to describe my view of religious belief? Most likely.

Would "Delusion" work better? KM has been using it, and it seems to fit reasonably.

"Their delusional religious belief" instead of "their ridiculous religious belief". Avoids alliteration also!

I don't believe in god for the same reasons I don't believe in the flying spagetti monster. Neither belief explains anything about human experience or life. Insofar as either belief has made claims or predictions about the world, they have been shown to be completely and utterly wrong. I consider your religious belief to be equivilent to the belief of a UFO cultist. I wish you where free of your religious infection.

Religious believers continue to infect their children with their religious beliefs. Religious believers continue to impose their beliefs on me. Religious believers holding the most powerful civil and military position in the entire world consider people without religious beliefs to be second-class citizens.

I have reason to be afraid of religious belief. And I don't think I can pick and choose which parts of religious belief that aren't threatening. There have been relatively non-threatening religious beliefs in the past (as far as I know), such as the theism of many of the founding fathers of the USA. It lacked sufficiently strong infectious power, and it pretty much died off as a philosophy.

I don't see why the length of establishment of the religion should sway me significantly on my opinions about the delusional belief itself. I'm well aware that delusional beliefs can be carried on through generations and generations of time. I'm aware that religious belief, in order to survive, needs to be very good at infecting the children of believers. Based off that, I'd expect older religions to be more powerful.

(And less destructive. On average, with lots of variance.)

This ability to quote those we disagree with seems to me to be f**king up the conversation. While acknowledging I don't make points very well, I have to ask: What's the point of picking apart another person's statement, point by point, while leaving out the other points? One might as well say "Allah ahkbar" and ignore it.

I was talking more about Dawkins than anyone else. Also, no one is attacking anything, leaset of all your beliefs. I hope you understand there is a marked difference between questioning beliefs and attacking beliefs. Attacking beliefs would be, for example: "Christians are delusional and should seek immediate psychiatric help, because if they don't humanity will be gone in a few generations. If they choose not to seek help, they should be incarcerated and not allowed to spread their lies or fed to lions." That's a bit different than the message of atheists in this thread. Our message is simply that faith in an unprovable higher power doesn't make sense to us. I'm sure most Christians scratch their heads a bit when they hear the story of Scientology. For us, it's basically the same concept. Why believe in something that is only referenced in a book? Why isn't this just simply more mythology, along with Greek, Norse, and such? Is there a rational explanation for faith in the supernatural? Those are the questions that are being addressed in the thread.
But you respect them less. Is that fair?
Wishing someone didn't have a serious problem is not directly linked the a loss of respect. Would you lose respect for someone in the grips of depression or addiction?

Respect requires recognizing our relative equality.
The theists not recognizing atheists as also created by god and the atheists ridiculing the theists strike me as similarly confused.

It's simply a matter of practicality. We responded to each and every paragraph, at first, but if we continued to respond to every one (I don't like picking sentences out of paragraphs in fear of losing important context) then our posts would be prohibitively long. Also, in this thread, many of the paragraphs have similar themes and we'd be needlessly repeating ourselves by responding to each one...

Never really understood the point. Usually just devolves into petty bickering of minor points to a larger argument, in my experience.

ENOUGH!!

What the hell?

The rampant, and blatant, disrespect and belittling, ends...NOW

If I see one, and I do mean one more instance of anyone calling another persons beliefs ridiculous...and it's time out city. Anyone "disagree"? Come see me in private. Unfreakin' believable.

I would like to thank everyone who participated. I learned new things, even if we disagreed.

Time out city?

Neeways, we should be free to discuss the various points between theism and atheism, BUT the 'you're an idiot' thing just doesn't do anything for the discussion. I might think you're an idiot, but coming out and saying it or asserting it in a discussion is wrong and against forum rules and good taste.

I think we should get back to the discussion. :thumbsup:

Yes...time out city ;)

You are free to discuss the various points between theism and atheism. In fact, I welcome it. I never intended for the discussion to end.
Exactly. And it will not continue. Tempted as I was to simply close the thread, I opted to leave it open because there is a lot of good discussion, and discourse, in it. Regretably, it is tainted with venom. I will not allow that to continue.

Please do. :thumbsup:

Psst, I was agreeing with you.

Psst...I know. ;)

I was reiterating. :D

You are both ridiculous. ;)

And the Parthenon still stands! It's bizarre.

~~

I ran into the same problem last nite when trying to find it for Dave to watch, we found this one

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80578032579777

its in english, but has spanish sub titles on the screen

While I liked the video in general, Dawkins himself is evangelical in his commentary.
I consider myself to be a 'logical atheist', in that I just look at what is there in religion, question it and draw a conclusion. It seems to me that if you have belief in God, you would have belief in the stories attributed to him in both the Old and New Testaments and none make a lick of sense.
People don't live to be over 400 years old, then have children; a man can't live in the belly of a whale and the only way to walk on water is if it's ice. And the beginnings of human life didn't pop up out of dirt.
This discussion has gone on for 192 comments so far and it boils down to a who is right and who is wrong. Having faith in a supreme entity is not wrong for the people who have it; it only becomes wrong when an attempt is made to use that faith to override factual information such as evolutionary evidence.
Personally, I'm of the feeling that if you believe in God and Jesus, you believe a fat man really could deliver toys to believing children simply by driving a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer; that fable makes about as much sense as turning around and becoming a pillar of salt. But that's just me. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can say they know those biblical stories are exagerations, but swear they think God and the miracles in the NT are true.
But, is that not the definition of faith? To believe without objectivity?

I think that dawkins is the andrea dworkin of the atheism movement. Ultimately he could do some good, if only because he makes all the atheists who aren't jerks seem a lot more reasonable.

Anyone who makes me seem more reasonable can't be all bad.

Dawkins has a great opportunity to change the public perception of atheism now that he's in the limelight. I just fear he is going to blow it all with his evangelical approach. The recent poll showing atheists to be the most mistrusted group shows that deep down people do not even understand our viewpoints. They view all atheists as being loud mouth trouble makers. If Dawkins can come across as reasonable and charming instead of angry he could make a great change.

Most people don't even understand their own viewpoints, possessing them without owning them. Evangelists from both ends of the spectrum tend to be loud mouth trouble makers. I think Dawkins doesn't seem to be angry, just frustrated. Oh, and reasonable and charming.

Right or wrong, I think this is a good assessment of Dawkins' attitude...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-_2xGIwQfik"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-_2xGIwQfik" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I can't get enough of this embedded YouTube stuff...

Well, convolution can be a good thing. It can...
Quoting others can be a good thing...
I'm not going to do either, as far as I know: Attacking our fellow human beings for what they believe and what they don't is not a good thing.
IT"S JUST US HERE, PEOPLE.