Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

You do realize that even bart ehrman says that jesus existed right? and he is a leading atheist religious scholar.

keyword being religious scholar.


And, a quick jaunt around Wiki, as well as google shows that there are many like him who present arguments for a historical jesus, just as there are many historians and anthropologists (not religious scholars) who argue against his historical existence.

These things are not really hard sciences, so for an individual, it comes down to who "you" think presents the best case, or best aligns with your beliefs.

I am an agnostic, but I personally believe that there was a Jesus and we can go back to the historical Buddha as far as religious prophets. Abraham and Moses? Not so much. But when you have a hard line atheist like Erhman who greatly dislikes Christianity and he says Jesus existed, I tend to believe him.

SilverMK2 wrote:

 zgort wrote:
@SilverMK2 - I don't think it is fair to call theists mental.

Believing something in direct contradiction of demonstratable reality is, one might say, a textbook definition of someone who needs help and support.

That aside, you asked why someone would challenge someone on their beliefs... If someone says they believe something I think is incorrect, I will challenge them on it (if it is appropriate to do so). I do not agree that one can make claims without a grounding in reality and be able to justify them on the grounds of personal faith... Especially not if they then attempt to rule the lives of others based on those beliefs.

Just because you personally don't share their beliefs doesn't mean you cannot respect that they are important to others

I am unsure why you feel that I cannot understand that people are invested in their beliefs. One can respect that while having little, no, or massive amounts of respect for their actual beliefs. The two are utterly separate.

I would hope they extend that same respect to your beliefs.

I would hope that my beliefs are based enough in reality to withstand any lack of respect people care to give them. Lack of respect in no way diminishes them.

The funny thing about reality is that it is subjective. Because a human, limited as he is, can't percieve the actual, factual reality most of the time, we tend to fill those gaps with what we think is true and call it reality. And sometimes people come to different conclusions, and therefore have different "realities". Always be careful when appealing to reality. Remember the wisdom of Socrates: "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."

SilverMK2 wrote:

Also, even discounting the specifics of a religion, there are positive aspects to religion itself: positive ethical codes, charity, and community building come to mind.

The key point here is discounting religion. Religion is not required to develop positive societies overflowing with the qualities listed.

That is quite a statement to make. No society afaik has developed without religion, so I wonder what evidence you have for your conclusion?

SilverMK2 wrote:

So again, live and let live.

I entirely agree. I may disagree entirely with what a person believes or live their life but they are entitled to do with their time on earth almost whatever they want... So long as they are not harming others. That however does not mean they escape questioning by playing the faith card if they make claims in the public sphere.

Interestingly I was talking to a Russian friend of mine in the pub a couple of weeks ago about religion and he was talking about organised atheism in the USSR being very much preached, with "priest"-like figures, meetings, etc. Although I would argue that was more about clearing the old social and political constructs than atheism itself.

Your friend was right. Atheism was the official state 'religion' of the USSR and had all kinds of meetings and organisations to 'convert' theists etc. Your assumption however is wrong. The eradication of religion was an ideological goal as much as a political goal. In fact, the heaviest persecution of religon took place long after the political power of the church was broken.
The Soviet Union and other atheist states should stand as a warning of the dangers of atheism. Millions of people have been murdered just because they dared to believe in a god. Live and let live indeed, but for some, it seems to be impossible to respect the beliefs of others. Atheism has as much blood on its hands as any religion in that regard.

SilverMK2 wrote:

 zgort wrote:
Why does anyone have to convince anyone?

Can we come upon our own beliefs honestly without antagonizing someone who has come upon their beliefs honestly?

If you believe that there is a pink unicorn in your bedroom who controls all life in the universe I am pretty sure psychiatic evaluation would feature strongly in your future.

Why is believing there is an invisible being who infuses the universe and impregnated a woman to give birth to an aspect of itself to absolve us of some sins heaped upon us by that same being because a snake tricked the original two people in the world into eating a magic apple somehow exempt from people being concerned about your mental health?

Didn't you just say: "Live and let live"? If someone were believe in a pink unicorn (which no sane person actually does), what is that to you?
Also, your second statement does not reflect any actual religion. Christianity is not about snakes tricking people into eating apples, it is about the message that is contained within that story. The Bible is just that, a bunch of stories written to get the actual message across.
Next time you feel like taking a stab at religion, could you please attack actual religious teachings? It is kinda hard to have a nice, constructive discussion otherwise.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Just give them a warning (Most places have a 3 warning then fired policy).

For minor breaches there's generally a three strike policy. But you can't punch the CEO and expect to get a first strike.

And this is not really a minor thing, a teacher didn't just lose their cool and shout at a student or anything spontaneous like that. If the lawsuit is the whole story, then the teacher reacted to a completely non-provocative student's statement about religion with a three day long program of social isolation. That's fething incredible.

The teacher should be fired, and anyone in his direct line of management who knew what was happening and did nothing should be fired as well.

 sebster wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Just give them a warning (Most places have a 3 warning then fired policy).

For minor breaches there's generally a three strike policy. But you can't punch the CEO and expect to get a first strike.

And this is not really a minor thing, a teacher didn't just lose their cool and shout at a student or anything spontaneous like that. If the lawsuit is the whole story, then the teacher reacted to a completely non-provocative student's statement about religion with a three day long program of social isolation. That's fething incredible.

The teacher should be fired, and anyone in his direct line of management who knew what was happening and did nothing should be fired as well.

Accountability? Nah we don't do that here

 Verviedi wrote:
Owning several fedoras is not a reason for somebody to be made fun of.

I swear I actually people look in to my office I was laughing so hard.

Dakka don't ever change.

Relapse wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Atheism is simply not believing in a higher power.

That's it.

It would seem , based on this and other threads, Atheism also involves ridiculing those who do not share that disbelief coupled with questioning their mental health and capacity.

Pretty much what I've been seeing on this thread.

A minority/small amount of people attacking other people shouldn't paint the rest of the group for you.

On Topic: Not sure the lawsuit is really justified, but the teacher DOES need to be punished in some way, what the teacher did was obviously illegal (from what I got from the story) and handled it in nearly the worst possible way, but suing might be more than a little out of hand, if they're doing it for money. If it was simply to get the teacher fired, that might be different (again, assuming the this is the full story).

 zgort wrote:

You are painting billions of people with a very broad and unflattering brush. That is why I said it is not fair. Your earlier post was demeaning in the extreme - most religious people do not take the story in genesis literally, they know it is ridiculous. There are smart religious people, just like there are ignorant atheists (though one may hold more than the other haha) Even the Catholic Church acknowledges scientific advance, albeit slowly, including evolution, big bang (fun fact: big bang was postulated by a Roman Catholic Priest, and Einstein wasn't a fan of the math behind it initially), and more recently, climate change.

Didn't Neil DeGrasse Tyson say something to the effect of, "I'm a Christian, but I leave my Christianity at home" I know he's often called out the overly religious in regards to their denial of scientific "fact" (I'd say, more appropriately, it's fact as we currently understand it)

IMO, he is one of the best spoken, most articulate scientific people that we have roaming the earth at the moment. I can't tell you how many times I've actually sat through a "boring" science documentary, simply for the fact that he's explaining everything to us (viewers) in a way that makes sense, as well as not demeaning scientists as being elitist.

While I agree with you that the number of people who believe that the Creation story is a great story, but believe in the science behind evolution are in the majority, sadly, I think they may be near the minority in the US. Idiots like Ken Ham (who we've all debated and ridiculed on these boards) and the Young Earther movement seems to be growing (if they aren't they sure as hell are vocalizing like they are)

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If you read the Bible, and actually look into what the words mean, you will notice how different such a kind of book is from a comic book.

Actually, no. You will juet see that if you read it in a very, very different way, you arrive to a different conclusion. If you had read Spiderman under the supervision and with the enlightedcommentaries of cult leader Peter Porker, you would find the comic so deep and true and all too. Remembesr when Charles Manson did just that with the Beatles' lyrics? It is not about what you read, it is about how you read it.


Could anyone disprove Greek mythology to me? Or should everyone take me seriously and accomodate my burning of animal offerings? Why does everyone seem to define atheism as not believing in ONE god? And why do agnostics and theists seem to only consider the possibility of a unique divinity rather than a full pantheon? A pantheon makes so much more sense...

 zgort wrote:
You are painting billions of people with a very broad and unflattering brush. That is why I said it is not fair.

You will of course note that I am not actually calling anyone mentally ill. Nor does it say anywhere that life has to be fair

Your earlier post was demeaning in the extreme - most religious people do not take the story in genesis literally, they know it is ridiculous. There are smart religious people, just like there are ignorant atheists (though one may hold more than the other haha) Even the Catholic Church acknowledges scientific advance, albeit slowly, including evolution, big bang (fun fact: big bang was postulated by a Roman Catholic Priest, and Einstein wasn't a fan of the math behind it initially), and more recently, climate change.

Sometimes things are unflattering. Again, life does not come with a guarantee that everyone will agree with what you think and be happy and supportive of it.

Some of the earliest scientific thinkers throughout human history were nominally religious (and often priests). Sitting around with plenty of time and money and having been educated to think while the rest of the people toil around in the mud to scratch a living and supply wealth and goods to keep you living a life of leisure often means that you will be in a position to advance human knowledge and understanding. Again, it is not inherent in the state of being religious. As can be seen when religious individuals, groups and organisations attempt to drag us back into the bronze age mythology they believe in...

No, I said why do you have to convince anyone. The reality is, if you do not have an open mind, you won't be able to change them to atheism any more than they can change you to be religious

Erm - perhaps we mean different things when we think of challenging people. When I see someone doing something I think is wrong, I will attempt to highlight what and why is wrong and convince them of the wrongness so that they hopefully don't do it again.

Challenging their beliefs is only going to spiral into a waste of time for everyone. (The futility of my words is becoming realized...now)

And yet there are many people who are swayed, made less extreme, or are convinced. Maybe not on a grand sweeping change of heart, bit on individual issues or concepts. You need to remember that the internet is full of the loudest voices; those who (generally) have made up their mind about something. But many more people read than contribute, and not every discussion happens with the die hard.

Besides which, the more noise is made about an issue and the higher peoples awareness of it, the more likelihood it will be discussed in the mainstream. Many minority issues have gained momentum through modern dissemination of information and the amplification of an individuals voice to enact real change.

Of course lack of respect does not make truth less true, but respect is accepting someone exactly as they are, regardless of their beliefs. It shows in your words you truly do not respect theists, which is not going to attract ANYONE to atheism. This is why religion is so prevalent, I think. Where so many atheists are content to just do their own thing, or to tear down religious people, those theists are actively reaching out to others, showing something attractive.

I work and live with many people of many beliefs - I fully accept them as people and would fight to protect their right too continue as they are. I do not randomly go up to my friends and colleagues or even strangers and start extolling the wrongs of religion (nor can I think of many atheists who would, unlike the many religious people I have encountered who seem quite happy to do the opposite). Most atheists exist quietly for three simple reasons; they are not on a crusade to convert the heathens (if you will forgive the expression ) because atheism is not generally organised, nor a passionate driver in peoples lives; simply a lack of belief. Secondly because in many places in the world "coming out" as atheist is not a healthy thing to do for your relationships with those around you. And lastly, because challenging peoples beliefs is not a conversation that happens every day, and in combination with point one, most people with weak belief (or lack of belief) will be content to simply get on with their day.

Religion is so prevalent for the simple fact that for thousands of years it as the only way to live and it has been indoctrinated from generation to generation worldwide. It certainly has its draws aside from any spiritual or universal correctness; unlike "atheism" you get a ready made community and the support that brings (for example).

This is the entire point of what I posted earlier. Why do you feel the need to question/correct the beliefs of others? What does it matter to you? That's why I posted there is no need to antagonize anyone. Just live your life, worry about yourself, and the rest isn't worth a gak.

If the topic of conversation is about belief, am I not entitled to state my own? If people want to debate belief can I not take part? I am not standing on a street corner or in a pulpit shouting angry words to the masses and forcing them to agree with me. I am not ostricising family members, friends or colleagues who do not tow the same line of belief as me.

We will all be dead one day anyway.

So why bother doing anything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The funny thing about reality is that it is subjective. Because a human, limited as he is, can't percieve the actual, factual reality most of the time, we tend to fill those gaps with what we think is true and call it reality. And sometimes people come to different conclusions, and therefore have different "realities". Always be careful when appealing to reality. Remember the wisdom of Socrates: "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."

And yet religion does not reflect reality (the kind of observed, tested, repeatable reality that science has helped discover for us over the years). Religious claims are often demonstrably wrong, obvious copy pastes from earlier religious or cultural myths, or later edits by meddling individuals or groups. One does not need a subjective reality to doubt a religious claim that is obviously made up...

That is quite a statement to make. No society afaik has developed without religion, so I wonder what evidence you have for your conclusion?.

Do you need to believe in the tooth monster who comes and punches your teeth out if they are dirty in order to carry out dental hygiene? What is gods position on toothpaste selection when it comes to that?

The fact that civilisations have risen and fallen with people believing many different things, that people have done good and bad regardless of their beliefs, that athiests do not wantonly self destruct in an orgy of lack of morality the second they come into being is evidence enough that all it takes for society to exist is people banding together.

The Soviet Union and other atheist states should stand as a warning of the dangers of atheism. Millions of people have been murdered just because they dared to believe in a god. Live and let live indeed, but for some, it seems to be impossible to respect the beliefs of others. Atheism has as much blood on its hands as any religion in that regard.

Or one should take away that one should not persecute people because of their beliefs...

Atheism in the USSR was as much a tool to inspire hatred of the political opponents of the leadership as religion was a tool of the kings and popes who sent out countless crusades into the middle East.

In both cases there were those who genuinely believed in their cause, but many more who saw it as a means to an end.

Didn't you just say: "Live and let live"?

No, I didn't. You misquoted the person I was replying to.

If someone were believe in a pink unicorn (which no sane person actually does), what is that to you?

If that person believes something that is untrue it does not suggest good things about their relationship to reality. They could potentially be a danger to themselves and others. And if they hold a position of power, especially if their position of power is held because other people who also believe in the pink unicorn helped get them there, then you have a serious problem

Relapse wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Atheism is simply not believing in a higher power.

That's it.

It would seem , based on this and other threads, Atheism also involves ridiculing those who do not share that disbelief coupled with questioning their mental health and capacity.

Pretty much what I've been seeing on this thread.

Wow, I must be getting old. I didn't realize until page 5 this was the monthly bash religion thread. Thats ok, the lord our Dog forgives.

"Dog is dead"
-Nietsche

 Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Atheism is simply not believing in a higher power.

That's it.

It would seem , based on this and other threads, Atheism also involves ridiculing those who do not share that disbelief coupled with questioning their mental health and capacity.

Pretty much what I've been seeing on this thread.

Wow, I must be getting old. I didn't realize until page 5 this was the monthly bash religion thread. Thats ok, the lord our Dog forgives.

"Dog is dead"
-Nietsche

Well, at least it took this long to roll out the ol' "oh nose there are people talking about religion in a not utterly positive way - they must be bashing it!" post

Disrespect for atheists is hard-coded into Christianity and Judaism:

"The fool says in his heart, there is no God."

"...he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth in him."

Theists might be surprised how often these features of Judeo-Christianity are used as actual arguments in the ultimately trivial "Is there a God?" debate, and often this stuff is thrown out after we merely answer the question, "Do you believe in God?" honestly. So we are called fools and worthy of wrath not only by theists, but by the source material itself.

I'm not trying to avoid Islam here. I'm sure the Koran has equally disgusting passages.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Atheism is simply not believing in a higher power.

That's it.

It would seem , based on this and other threads, Atheism also involves ridiculing those who do not share that disbelief coupled with questioning their mental health and capacity.

Pretty much what I've been seeing on this thread.

Wow, I must be getting old. I didn't realize until page 5 this was the monthly bash religion thread. Thats ok, the lord our Dog forgives.

"Dog is dead"
-Nietsche

Well, at least it took this long to roll out the ol' "oh nose there are people talking about religion in a not utterly positive way - they must be bashing it!" post

Note the post below yours

 Frazzled wrote:
Note the post below yours

posting quotes directly from a religious text and highlightin how they inform how some people interact with others is bashing religion now?

Wow Fraz. Nice work...

Calling people mentally unstable for being religious has got to come close to meeting your definition of bashing, doesn't it?

@Frazz: I guess your post was in reference to mine?

Not sure how pointing out source texts, and stating that these texts are used often by some theists to disrespect atheists, is religion bashing.

I was responding to the assertion that atheists frequently ridicule believers, which to me is a pot meet kettle issue. Atheists are frequently called fools and told they deserve to burn forever, and this often happens in my experience for the simple offense of answering "Do you believe in God?" with an honest "No."

 CptJake wrote:
Calling people mentally unstable for being religious has got to come close to meeting your definition of bashing, doesn't it?

Again, if someone has beliefs that in no way reflect reality, we often consider professional intervention. Somehow though religious beliefs get a free pass.

You may also note that at no point did I call anyone mentally unstable. Nor have I bashed anyones beliefs.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Calling people mentally unstable for being religious has got to come close to meeting your definition of bashing, doesn't it?

Again, if someone has beliefs that in no way reflect reality, we often consider professional intervention. Somehow though religious beliefs get a free pass.

You may also note that at no point did I call anyone mentally unstable. Nor have I bashed anyones beliefs.

Yeah, you pretty clearly stated anyone with religious beliefs fits your definition of mentally unstable. You can try to weasel word around it, but that is disingenuous at best. You may not be bashing their beliefs, instead you are bashing them for holding the beliefs. Perhaps in your mind that is better.

Well, you've just equated religious belief with mental illness, so I think the second second part of your post is not correct.

Ninja'd!

It seems as if RELIGION just can't be discussed....politely.

So - we're "this close" to a thread lock - and warnings/suspensions.

Forewarned and all that now, right?

One can hold beliefs through logical application of knowledge that, to me, are flawed. Many religious beliefs fall into this category (imo).

One can also hold entirely innocent beliefs which are nonsensical (to someone at least!) but are ultimately harmless and exist as part of an otherwise "sane" outlook on life.

Both significant departures from equating all belief with mental illness. Certainly, I did not particular differentiate the point however.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, you've just equated religious belief with mental illness, so I think the second second part of your post is not correct.

Ninja'd!

Of course Ninja'd I see that rising son on your avatar. You have a whole army of ninja bunnies. We know about you!

Are there any other sources for this story? Any new material we can discuss?

Most people are mentally unstable in one way or another, or suffer from some form of mental issue.

Religion, if it is classified as such, is (often) a pretty benign expression of psychological weirdness.

Expecting pure rationality from people is equally unrealistic. As an atheist/agnostic, I think that's what gets me most about "new atheism" - this sort of perspective that reason and rationality can trump all and will trump all. It just doesn't bear out in real life in any way.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If you read the Bible, and actually look into what the words mean, you will notice how different such a kind of book is from a comic book.

Actually, no. You will juet see that if you read it in a very, very different way, you arrive to a different conclusion. If you had read Spiderman under the supervision and with the enlightedcommentaries of cult leader Peter Porker, you would find the comic so deep and true and all too. Remembesr when Charles Manson did just that with the Beatles' lyrics? It is not about what you read, it is about how you read it.


Could anyone disprove Greek mythology to me? Or should everyone take me seriously and accomodate my burning of animal offerings? Why does everyone seem to define atheism as not believing in ONE god? And why do agnostics and theists seem to only consider the possibility of a unique divinity rather than a full pantheon? A pantheon makes so much more sense...

Probably because monotheistic religions are the largest and most influential, especially in the West. The only large polytheistic religion nowadays is hinduism, and there are not all that many hindus in the West.

SilverMK2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The funny thing about reality is that it is subjective. Because a human, limited as he is, can't percieve the actual, factual reality most of the time, we tend to fill those gaps with what we think is true and call it reality. And sometimes people come to different conclusions, and therefore have different "realities". Always be careful when appealing to reality. Remember the wisdom of Socrates: "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."

And yet religion does not reflect reality (the kind of observed, tested, repeatable reality that science has helped discover for us over the years). Religious claims are often demonstrably wrong, obvious copy pastes from earlier religious or cultural myths, or later edits by meddling individuals or groups. One does not need a subjective reality to doubt a religious claim that is obviously made up...

First of all, science does not help us discover reality. Science, for all its benefits, still is conducted by humans, and many times scientific ideas that were once held as truth later turn out to be false. Science leads to a certain explanation of our perception of reality, yet reality itself remains unknowable. For example: an object falling to the ground can be explained by the theory of gravity, yet we do not know if the theory of gravity is actually true. Someday, something may be discovered that leads us to an entirely different explanation of gravity. Those things have happened in the past, they can happen again. Science offers a very shaky, doubtable reality at best.

Secondly, you will have to elaborate on your conclusion that religion does not reflect reality, because right now you are just ranting without backing it up.
Thirdly, give me one religious christian claim that is demonstrably wrong.

SilverMK2 wrote:[

That is quite a statement to make. No society afaik has developed without religion, so I wonder what evidence you have for your conclusion?.

Do you need to believe in the tooth monster who comes and punches your teeth out if they are dirty in order to carry out dental hygiene? What is gods position on toothpaste selection when it comes to that?

This strawman is completely irrelevant to this discussion, unless you can explain to me how God's favourite tooth paste relates to this tooth monster and how this is relevant?

SilverMK2 wrote:The fact that civilisations have risen and fallen with people believing many different things, that people have done good and bad regardless of their beliefs, that athiests do not wantonly self destruct in an orgy of lack of morality the second they come into being is evidence enough that all it takes for society to exist is people banding together.

So, can you give me an example of an atheist society that was sucessful and did not degenerate into violence and mass slaughter to ultimately collapse? Because I can give plenty of examples of atheist societies that did. Soviet Union, Albania, Cambodia etc.

SilverMK2 wrote:

The Soviet Union and other atheist states should stand as a warning of the dangers of atheism. Millions of people have been murdered just because they dared to believe in a god. Live and let live indeed, but for some, it seems to be impossible to respect the beliefs of others. Atheism has as much blood on its hands as any religion in that regard.

Or one should take away that one should not persecute people because of their beliefs...

Atheism in the USSR was as much a tool to inspire hatred of the political opponents of the leadership as religion was a tool of the kings and popes who sent out countless crusades into the middle East.

In both cases there were those who genuinely believed in their cause, but many more who saw it as a means to an end.

Any state religion is a tool of the state, that is why it is a state religion.
That does not take away however that the Bolsheviks and other communists genuinely believed in the righteousness of atheism. Atheism is not less bloody than any other religion, and radical atheism can be as dangerous as radical islam etc.
And if you believe that one should not persecute people because of their beliefs, than why do you scorn them for it?

SilverMK2 wrote:

If someone were believe in a pink unicorn (which no sane person actually does), what is that to you?

If that person believes something that is untrue it does not suggest good things about their relationship to reality. They could potentially be a danger to themselves and others. And if they hold a position of power, especially if their position of power is held because other people who also believe in the pink unicorn helped get them there, then you have a serious problem

Remember that it is only untrue in your limited, subjective perception of reality. The pink unicorn is fully true in those people's limited subjective perception of reality.
Who are you to say that your reality is better than their reality?
And what problem would we have if the cult of the pink unicorn would get into power? Aren't you just discriminating against people based on their belief here?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

So why bother doing anything?

Especially antagonizing people who are religious. Why bother?

(See what I did there? Back to the beginning )

 zgort wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

So why bother doing anything?

Especially antagonizing people who are religious. Why bother?

(See what I did there? Back to the beginning )

But more seriously; when actually discussing things with a person for the first time I certainly do not go straight for the antanonistic approach. Topics on Dakka however... I speak perhaps a little more bluntly, although ultimately my position is the same. If you make a truth claim you need to justify it as ultimately any deviation from "there is nothing" is a positive claim which must be proven as any other claim, scientific, faith based, or anything else must be (akin to how the null hypothesis must be disproven by demonstrating evidence for the positive claim). If people make a claim I feel is wrong I will attempt to refute it - regardless of the topic. It just so happens that most relgious claims are claims that I feel are wrong and can be demonstrated as such... and people love talking about their religious beliefs and how society would be better off if we all followed whatever particular brand of religion they are espousing so it turns out that I end up discussing such subjects with reasonable frequency.

You might feel the need to rebuke it, but that doesn't justify breaking rule 1 and being antagonistic about it.

If every Christian on here who thought you were wrong would start preaching to you non-stop and try to convert you every time they could see an opening you would be pissed and you would hit the triangle quite a bit.

If they would start personally attacking you with statements like "atheists are too ignorant to consider the truth", "they are too weak minded to accept that there is something bigger than them", "atheists are all donkey-caves who wear fedoras and want to feel important", and "atheists, I'm glad when they all burn in hell, feth these guys", then you would really be pissed and hit the triangle a lot (as well you should).

tl;dr: You can be right/wrong, and you can be a dick/not a dick. It's up to you which combination you want to be on the internet.

Edit: the second point really doesn't matter. Just follow the 1st...

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Science, for all its benefits, still is conducted by humans, and many times scientific ideas that were once held as truth later turn out to be false.

But in the end, that's the "grand" thing with science: those who practice it (scientists) are more willing than pretty much any group to change their minds in the face of new evidence.

Conversely, you get some overly religious types, Young Earthers, specifically, who refuse to acknowledge science in any meaningful way, and seriously think that there are ZERO gaps between the 6-days to build earth story, and Noah's flood and on to Moses grabbin' his people and making a break for it.

Most often, when a previously held theory turns out to be false, it isn't so much that it's outright false, just that the new theory, or new model fits the evidence better than the old one.

 d-usa wrote:
You might feel the need to rebuke it, but that doesn't justify breaking rule 1 and being antagonistic about it.

If you feel that I have broken rule 1, please feel free to report it not only to the admins but to myself - I am happy to be "antagonistic" but I do aim to refrain from being insulting.

If every Christian on here who thought you were wrong would start preaching to you non-stop and try to convert you every time they could see an opening you would be pissed and you would hit the triangle quite a bit.

Given the frequency of religious threads (or threads which descend into religious threads) that I have taken part in here on Dakka (or read through) I can't actually recall the last time I reported a post. I think there may have been... one or two in the however many years I have been a member here?

If they would start personally attacking you with statements like "atheists are too ignorant to consider the truth", "they are too weak minded to accept that there is something bigger than them", "atheists are all donkey-caves who wear fedoras and want to feel important", and "atheists, I'm glad when they all burn in hell, feth these guys", then you would really be pissed and hit the triangle a lot (as well you should).

Well, for a start I would refute the points being made rather than being insulted. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that my beliefs can hold up to questioning and are not reduced through people not respecting them. If people started actually getting insulting then sure, I would probably hit the yellow triangle of friendship.

tl;dr: You can be right/wrong, and you can be a dick/not a dick. It's up to you which combination you want to be on the internet.

Indeed.