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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If you had actually ever read a Bible, you would not say that. It is also very clear that you don't know what a work of fiction is (Spider Man and other Marvel stories are fiction, not myth), and how fiction is different from myth.

Hey, slow down there pal! Before you go making assumptions, FYI, I have read the bible, in fact I read it quite frequently. It's something I find very interesting. And telling me I don't know what a work of fiction is, is just patronising. Of course fiction and myth are different (sometimes), but what they both have in common is their questionable relationship with reality.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
People should be shamed if they disrespect the beliefs of others

Not all beliefs are equally deserving of "respect", it depends on the veracity of the belief. Lies don't deserve respect.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
they are "militant" if they insist that their personal belief is the only right one and go out of their way to shame others for daring to believe in something different (as do you).

So I'm a militant for insisting pigs don't fly, and should be shamed for openly contradicting those that "dare to believe" pig do fly? You're completely out of touch with reality. The reason I insist pigs don't fly is because there is no evidence that they can fly (because they can't), just because I can't prove conclusively that they can't fly does not make it 50:50 that I'm wrong. The chance of me being wrong is so close to 0% that it's hardly worth mentioning. And the chance of me being wrong about the Christian god is also close to 0%. The negligible room for doubt does not make it 50:50.

Oh yes, please tell me all about how you think your unprovable belief in the non-existance of God is far superior to the equally unprovable but far more logical and supported belief of others in the existence of God.

The burden of proof is not on me, and a negative can't be proven. However there is quite a lot of evidence to support my position that the Bible stories are not historical.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own comment? You decry a person for being hateful, expressing hateful opinions, whilst your comment itself is being hateful and expressing hateful opinions.

There is a really important difference. That person is claiming (wrongly) that the bible is the word of god, and using that to justify his hatred for another person.

All I'm doing is calling him out for having absolutely no evidence to support his belief.

It is things like this why f̶e̶d̶o̶r̶a̶s̶ atheists are not taken seriously anymore.

Hand me a fedora! I'll fething own that gak.

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...

How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?

I honestly think that at this point the discussion between two 7 year olds regarding the existence of God, or the lack thereof, is probably as developed and meaningful as a discussion about who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman. At least, judging by this thread, it elicits the same amount of responses here on Dakka Dakka

Even seven year olds are capable of having intellectual discussions on a basic level and this forms part of normal school teaching to help them develop their critical faculties.

Another reason why the teacher's actions are reprehensible is because she prevented this type of pedagogy from taking place.

 jasper76 wrote:


How to put this??...I think you may be overestimating the state of cognitive development of the average 7 year old. Were talking about 1st and 2nd grade here.

I don't think so. When you boil it right down, the basic principles are very simple and with the right approach could be explained to an inquisitive child.

People underestimate children's abilities and hinder them by assuming that they won't understand, when really it could be that the adult doesn't have the necessary understanding to break a complex system down into its most simple parts.

For example on the formation of the solar system:

There are things we call forces. Forces cause things to move, such as if you were to push your train along the track, you are putting a force on it.
One of these forces is called gravity. Gravity is what makes things stick to other things. If we jump in the air, gravity is what pulls us back down and stops us from flying up into the air forever.
At the beginning of the solar system it was just a big cloud of dust and gas.
Gravity pulled this dust and gas together. When it was pulled together it got hot, like when you hug someone and feel their warmth and your own.
Eventually there was enough stuff all pulled together that the stuff got hot enough to burn. This made the Sun.
Smaller clumps of stuff also stuck together and eventually became the planets, such as the Earth.
These planets were a lot smaller than the sun and so started to move around it in what we call "orbits"
This all took a very long time to happen, even longer than grandma has been alive.

Or something like that. Throw in some experiments to help demonstrate some stuff and you're golden.

As a 7 year old, I already knew I was destined for greatness. I was going to be the greatest Giraffe of all times. I was going to be:

About the Marvel versus Bible debate, I think there are two differences between those. The first one is that Marvel's story have always been presented as fiction, unlike the Bible. The second one is that our societies have given a huge, HUGE varnish of respectability. So, I think a better comparison would be with the South Park episode about scientology where they have a segment with "this is what scientology actually teaches". Here, Trey Parker and Matt Stones just expose the scientologist beliefs directly, without the varnish that the cult's evangelists would take a great deal of time and effort to add. The result is that the beliefs just looks to silly to ever take seriously. Well, once you remove the varnish, so does the bible. And to say the truth, so does most scientific theories. The big difference is how each knowledge was obtained, and even more so how it can be used. Classical mechanic is known to be false. It is still, by the way it came to existence, a pretty good approximation of truth for many, many purpose, and it is still irremplacably useful for humanity. The day christianity is proven false, it becomes as useless and irrelevant as, say, Greek mythology. And it is a less interesting story overall .

 Da Boss wrote:
Also, I've seen some americans often differentiate between Catholics and Christians. Surely Catholics ARE christians, as in, they believe in Christ? Is this some sort of america specific thing? Do they mean "protestant" when they say "christian"?

Some American are ignorant donkey-cave. In other news, the sky is blue, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and basically every country in the world has its fair share of bigots and donkey-cave.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...

How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?

I honestly think that at this point the discussion between two 7 year olds regarding the existence of God, or the lack thereof, is probably as developed and meaningful as a discussion about who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman. At least, judging by this thread, it elicits the same amount of responses here on Dakka Dakka

Even seven year olds are capable of having intellectual discussions on a basic level and this forms part of normal school teaching to help them develop their critical faculties.

I don't disagree there at all. I'm just saying that the conversation about God isn't too intellectual for a 7 year old and that it really is no different than any number of other conversations that kids have around that age: is Santa Claus real, what happens when my pet dies, can Superman beat up Batman. I'm not trying to belittle the importance of what either one of them think about God, I'm just saying that it's just another conversation and disagreement between two 7 year old kids at school.

Another reason why the teacher's actions are reprehensible is because she prevented this type of pedagogy from taking place.

I agree there as well. The long term effect this conversation would have had on their mental well being is pretty insignificant. Sure, the one kid was upset, but was she really more upset than any number of kids are when their classmates tell them that Santa isn't real? The response by the teachers is the real problem, not what each of the kids believe and who agrees with which kid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:

Also, I've seen some americans often differentiate between Catholics and Christians. Surely Catholics ARE christians, as in, they believe in Christ? Is this some sort of america specific thing? Do they mean "protestant" when they say "christian"?

You can go pretty far down the rabbit hole with this if you want to, depending on the individual groups.

You have Christians vs Everybody else (Jews, Muslims, Atheists, whatever)
Then you split between Protestants (aka: "Christians") vs Catholics.
Then you split Evangelicals (aka: "Christians) vs the other Protestants.
Then you split Baptists (aka: "Christians) vs the other Evangelicals.
Then you split Southern Baptists (aka: Christians) vs the other Baptists.
Then you split Southern Baptists who read the King James Bible (aka: Christians) vs the other Baptists who read the false translations.

Now that doesn't apply to the vast majority of folks, but if you speak to the right people or the right congregation, you can get pretty splintered with certain folks thinking that their way is the only right way.

The way I look at it is this. Reverse the situation, if people would be all up in arms, pitchforks and torches at the ready, then the inverse is also as important.

Example. Teacher Athiest, Student Christian. Athiest segregates( cause that is what the teacher did) the student based on belief. Would this fly? Should it?

If the answer is no, then the inverse should also not fly. As an Athiest, I would not sue, I would ruin lives. I mean this would follow you. It is no different than any other form of segregation or discrimination. What next, students who have 2 gay parents get segregated so as not to allow other students to catch the Gay?

 redleger wrote:
The way I look at it is this. Reverse the situation, if people would be all up in arms, pitchforks and torches at the ready, then the inverse is also as important.

Example. Teacher Athiest, Student Christian. Athiest segregates( cause that is what the teacher did) the student based on belief. Would this fly? Should it?

If the answer is no, then the inverse should also not fly. As an Athiest, I would not sue, I would ruin lives. I mean this would follow you. It is no different than any other form of segregation or discrimination. What next, students who have 2 gay parents get segregated so as not to allow other students to catch the Gay?

agreed

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
"Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"

Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?

No evidence either way, and there is no default belief.

So if someone tells me they have a big invisible Dragon in their garage, what should be my default belief about that truth claim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html

You should read your own link
The fallacy fallacy is committed when a conclusion is rejected as false because one of the arguments used to support it was fallacious. I don't recall rejecting any conclusion, I just tried to warn you that you were setting up a strawman.

 Scrabb wrote:

Jesus is a historical figure. Whatever the truth about his divinity his life shook things up dramatically.

Very debatable.


@Formosa, Religion, as shown in the OP has no place in school. However, religion very much has a place in the history class, or "social studies" classes that nearly all students go through at some point. Behind Economics, Religion is probably the the biggest reason why People do things to other people (and by People, with a capitol P, I mean nations, tribes and the like), and understanding the role that religion once had in society goes a great way to understanding the people who have come long before we did.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:

Jesus is a historical figure. Whatever the truth about his divinity his life shook things up dramatically.

Very debatable.


@Formosa, Religion, as shown in the OP has no place in school. However, religion very much has a place in the history class, or "social studies" classes that nearly all students go through at some point. Behind Economics, Religion is probably the the biggest reason why People do things to other people (and by People, with a capitol P, I mean nations, tribes and the like), and understanding the role that religion once had in society goes a great way to understanding the people who have come long before we did.

Most historians do actually believe that, at some time between 50bc and 50ad, there was a person alive called Jesus. There is much discussion on whether he was actually the son of God.

In all fairness, I've always thought that the person who has the belief should prove it to non believers, it's not up to me to prove a negative, it's up to you to prove a positive.

 Smacks wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If you had actually ever read a Bible, you would not say that. It is also very clear that you don't know what a work of fiction is (Spider Man and other Marvel stories are fiction, not myth), and how fiction is different from myth.

Hey, slow down there pal! Before you go making assumptions, FYI, I have read the bible, in fact I read it quite frequently. It's something I find very interesting. And telling me I don't know what a work of fiction is, is just patronising. Of course fiction and myth are different (sometimes), but what they both have in common is their questionable relationship with reality.

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.
Just because apples and oranges both happen to be fruits, doesn't mean they can be compared. In the same way, because both the Bible and Spiderman have no scientific evidence to back them up, doesn't mean they can be compared, much less mentioned as being the same kind of thing.

 Smacks wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
People should be shamed if they disrespect the beliefs of others

Not all beliefs are equally deserving of "respect", it depends on the veracity of the belief. Lies don't deserve respect.

Lies are not beliefs.

 Smacks wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
they are "militant" if they insist that their personal belief is the only right one and go out of their way to shame others for daring to believe in something different (as do you).

So I'm a militant for insisting pigs don't fly, and should be shamed for openly contradicting those that "dare to believe" pig do fly? You're completely out of touch with reality. The reason I insist pigs don't fly is because there is no evidence that they can fly (because they can't), just because I can't prove conclusively that they can't fly does not make it 50:50 that I'm wrong. The chance of me being wrong is so close to 0% that it's hardly worth mentioning. And the chance of me being wrong about the Christian god is also close to 0%. The negligible room for doubt does not make it 50:50.

No, the thing about flying pigs is a strawman for religion where the belief in flying pigs stands in for the belief in God, unless of course you were intending to have a serious discussion on whether pigs fly or not, which is ridiculous because no one claims such a thing. I am therefore speaking of your attitude towards religion, not towards imaginary people who believe in flying pigs.
Also, you have no evidence for your claim that the chance that you are wrong is close to 0%, so I can't help but seriously doubt that and question your self-righteousness.

 Smacks wrote:

Oh yes, please tell me all about how you think your unprovable belief in the non-existance of God is far superior to the equally unprovable but far more logical and supported belief of others in the existence of God.

The burden of proof is not on me, and a negative can't be proven. However there is quite a lot of evidence to support my position that the Bible stories are not historical.

And there is quite a lot of evidence to support that the Bible stories are historical.

 Smacks wrote:

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own comment? You decry a person for being hateful, expressing hateful opinions, whilst your comment itself is being hateful and expressing hateful opinions.

There is a really important difference. That person is claiming (wrongly) that the bible is the word of god, and using that to justify his hatred for another person.

All I'm doing is calling him out for having absolutely no evidence to support his belief.

Which is called hypocrisy, because you too have absolutely no evidence to support your belief. And then you use this belief to justify your hatred for that person.

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?

 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?

I agree, to each their own I say, as long as your beliefs do not entail illegal acts and/or cause harm to yourself or others.

The problem here is that religions nearly always contain a "propagation" clause that requires followers to annoy, antagonize, attack, kill or otherwise inconvenience any person, nation, or organization that does ascribe to the same religious views.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Most historians do actually believe that, at some time between 50bc and 50ad, there was a person alive called Jesus. There is much discussion on whether he was actually the son of God.

In all fairness, I've always thought that the person who has the belief should prove it to non believers, it's not up to me to prove a negative, it's up to you to prove a positive.

Much of the stuff I've seen on the subject point to "someone" living in that region, but was not named Jesus. And that the ONLY mention of a "Jesus" from the time period when he was supposed to have lived, was written by a Josephus Flavius who has for some time now, been disproved in basically all of his writings (as in, he either plagiarized or straight made up stuff, and called it a historical account)

And I agree with you... in a situation where convincing is the goal (one could say that the "ultimate" goal would be conversion to whatever religion), that the person who believes something should be proving what they believe is true/right, not disproving the other person's belief

 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?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:

Jesus is a historical figure. Whatever the truth about his divinity his life shook things up dramatically.

Very debatable.


@Formosa, Religion, as shown in the OP has no place in school. However, religion very much has a place in the history class, or "social studies" classes that nearly all students go through at some point. Behind Economics, Religion is probably the the biggest reason why People do things to other people (and by People, with a capitol P, I mean nations, tribes and the like), and understanding the role that religion once had in society goes a great way to understanding the people who have come long before we did.

Well put and fair enough :-)


As to the question about the atheist doing to a religious person what was done to this child, no, it is not acceptable and yes I would also want that person fired, however as far as I'm aware, no atheist book exists that commands you to convert others (not all religions) or treat unbelievers badly (almost all religions)

Thankfully most people are smarter than that and don't take the whole thing as gospel.

 Formosa wrote:

As to the question about the atheist doing to a religious person what was done to this child, no, it is not acceptable and yes I would also want that person fired, however as far as I'm aware, no atheist book exists that commands you to convert others (not all religions) or treat unbelievers badly (almost all religions)

Thankfully most people are smarter than that and don't take the whole thing as gospel.

If I, an atheist was in that exact position (a young child saying that they do not believe in god, or go to church... during school time), I would probably say something like, "That's OK that you don't do that, just as it's Ok if Sally (the name I just gave to the girl he was talking to initially) and her family DO go to church or believe in gods" Conversely, I would say to a religious student "It's OK to believe in your religion, just as it's OK for others to believe what they do".... the only way I'd go a step further, is if the child was berating another over their beliefs

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

As to the question about the atheist doing to a religious person what was done to this child, no, it is not acceptable and yes I would also want that person fired, however as far as I'm aware, no atheist book exists that commands you to convert others (not all religions) or treat unbelievers badly (almost all religions)

Thankfully most people are smarter than that and don't take the whole thing as gospel.

If I, an atheist was in that exact position (a young child saying that they do not believe in god, or go to church... during school time), I would probably say something like, "That's OK that you don't do that, just as it's Ok if Sally (the name I just gave to the girl he was talking to initially) and her family DO go to church or believe in gods" Conversely, I would say to a religious student "It's OK to believe in your religion, just as it's OK for others to believe what they do".... the only way I'd go a step further, is if the child was berating another over their beliefs

Thats because we're reasonable people lol, bet Richard Dawkins would rip the kid a new one

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Most historians do actually believe that, at some time between 50bc and 50ad, there was a person alive called Jesus. There is much discussion on whether he was actually the son of God.

In all fairness, I've always thought that the person who has the belief should prove it to non believers, it's not up to me to prove a negative, it's up to you to prove a positive.

Much of the stuff I've seen on the subject point to "someone" living in that region, but was not named Jesus. And that the ONLY mention of a "Jesus" from the time period when he was supposed to have lived, was written by a Josephus Flavius who has for some time now, been disproved in basically all of his writings (as in, he either plagiarized or straight made up stuff, and called it a historical account)

And I agree with you... in a situation where convincing is the goal (one could say that the "ultimate" goal would be conversion to whatever religion), that the person who believes something should be proving what they believe is true/right, not disproving the other person's belief

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

 agnosto 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?

I agree, to each their own I say, as long as your beliefs do not entail illegal acts and/or cause harm to yourself or others.

The problem here is that religions nearly always contain a "propagation" clause that requires followers to annoy, antagonize, attack, kill or otherwise inconvenience any person, nation, or organization that does ascribe to the same religious views.

True enough, but to play devils advocate (heh, relevant), isn't atheism a system of belief that propogates itself? A psuedo-religious take on logic, reason, and science to "enlighten" those silly theists? One that if you do not subscribe to it, you are shunned as illogical, crazy, or stupid? This exact propagation that you describe is in this forum from both sides.

@SilverMK2 - I don't think it is fair to call theists mental. Just because you personally don't share their beliefs doesn't mean you cannot respect that they are important to others. I would hope they extend that same respect to your beliefs. 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.

So again, live and let live.

 zgort wrote:

 agnosto 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?

I agree, to each their own I say, as long as your beliefs do not entail illegal acts and/or cause harm to yourself or others.

The problem here is that religions nearly always contain a "propagation" clause that requires followers to annoy, antagonize, attack, kill or otherwise inconvenience any person, nation, or organization that does ascribe to the same religious views.

True enough, but to play devils advocate (heh, relevant), isn't atheism a system of belief that propogates itself? A psuedo-religious take on logic, reason, and science to "enlighten" those silly theists? This exact propagation that you describe is in this forum from both sides.

Nah. Most atheists are more than happy to let people believe whatever they want; you get "militants" in any belief system (or non-belief system) but established religions actually have documents that require followers to go forth and preach to the ignorant masses. I ran into a ton of "elder" such and such's when I lived in Asia, trying to convince the heathens to see the light.

Maybe atheists need to create a system to going forth and being "junior" so and so's and bringing enlightenment to the masses.

Atheism is simply not believing in a higher power.

That's it.

 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.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:

Maybe atheists need to create a system to going forth and being "junior" so and so's and bringing enlightenment to the masses.

Isn't that the Unitarian Universalists?

 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.

It's more about being called a fedora tipper, really.

 agnosto wrote:


Nah. Most atheists are more than happy to let people believe whatever they want; you get "militants" in any belief system (or non-belief system) but established religions actually have documents that require followers to go forth and preach to the ignorant masses. I ran into a ton of "elder" such and such's when I lived in Asia, trying to convince the heathens to see the light.

Maybe atheists need to create a system to going forth and being "junior" so and so's and bringing enlightenment to the masses.

It sounds like a case of lumping all religious together and lumping all atheists together. Most athiests are probably chill, and most religious are probably chill, and the gakheads from both piss everyone off.

If I recall correctly, Jesus taught something to the effect of go preach, and if they don't accept you, shake the dust from your sandals and move on.

Doesn't sound any more offensive than a vendor yelling "hot dogs here, tasty hot dogs here."

Only instead of tasty hot dogs, it's yummy religion?

Good talk everyone. Really great results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

That's it.

You are right, by definition. But how many people take it upon themselves to berate someone else because of their beliefs (religious are not exempt here)? Just read this thread to find out!

 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.

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.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:
Maybe atheists need to create a system to going forth and being "junior" so and so's and bringing enlightenment to the masses.

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.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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

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.

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.

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

One can respect that while having little, no, or massive amounts of respect for their actual beliefs. The two are utterly separate.

Truth

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.

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 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.

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.

We will all be dead one day anyway.

 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.