People should absolutely be free to practice any religion they want in the US.
People shouldn’t be able to shove religion in your face or the opposite of athiests trying to shove non-religion in everyone’s face.
A true athiest is just as “delusional” as a true religious person. Both believe their idea is right on “beliefs.” No proof God or gods exist or not.
Most “athiests” are agnostic athiests, not gnostic athiest.
World would be a better place if “athiests” went more by agnostics.
Saying you’re athiest to a religious person is saying “I know your religion is wrong”. Saying you’re agnostic to a religious person is saying “I don’t know, but I don’t necessarily agree with you.”
There is currently no way to know. That is a fact, a hard truth. Thinking you have a way to know one way or the other is “crazy”
You are technically correct that most people that call themselves atheists are agnostics. But that’s a little like saying that .999999999999999999 is 1; it’s close enough that it’s not going to make a difference in almost all cases.
If you have empirical, verifiable, falsifiable evidence that a god exists, then most atheists will change their opinion. A person that believes in a god believes despite a complete lack of evidence.
It’s not that an atheist is saying, “I know your religion is wrong”; it’s much closer to, "you have not presented any falsifiable evidence that your religion is correct.
There is currently no way to know.
It’s true that you can’t prove a negative. On the other hand, no evidence exists that would tend to prove that a god exists. The lack of evidence is quite damning, particularly since people have been trying to demonstrate the existence of a god for well over 8000 years. Miracles have almost entirely ceased in the age of forensics, modern medicine, and photography; it’s almost like they only exist when they can’t be documented.
People should absolutely be free to practice any religion they want in the US.
No, Scientol0gy is criminal
People shouldn’t be able to shove religion in your face or the opposite of athiests trying to shove non-religion in everyone’s face.
No, The majority of atheists I am aware of keep it to themselves. The majority or Christians try to convert everyone they meet.
A true athiest is just as “delusional” as a true religious person. Both believe their idea is right on “beliefs.” No proof God or gods exist or not.
No, you’re speaking as a believer. A god would need to be proven first in order to be disproven.
Most “athiests” are agnostic athiests, not gnostic athiest.
Here we go telling people what to think again.
World would be a better place if “athiests” went more by agnostics.
Saying you agree there is a possibility of a god or not and denying the existence wholeheartedly are two different things.
Saying you’re athiest to a religious person is saying “I know your religion is wrong”. Saying you’re agnostic to a religious person is saying “I don’t know, but I don’t necessarily agree with you.”
Yup
There is currently no way to know. That is a fact, a hard truth. Thinking you have a way to know one way or the other is “crazy”
You can’t prove a negative, that’s a fact. Therein lies the fundamental flaw with theists, belief and opinion are not equal to facts.
The simple truth you cannot accept is understanding fact from fiction.
Smarter than you? yes. Absolutely. You like to hunker down and talk to yourself with a very stern look on your face. You call it praying. You also like to let some old pedo effers dressed up in costumes waving a barely relevant internally inconsistent book of outdated medeival tribal ideas tell you what to do. You think accepting it without question at all, no matter how crazy it is-- faith-- is somehow a virtue. You’re a slave in a cult.
May your all powerful sky fairy strike me down if I’m telling any untruths here.
Reality is but a quip. If only it were that simple. Ignorance is bliss. Not equally nor any other fashion. There is belief in fairy tales and there is not.
I mean, it’s the community that keeps people around. The rules and dogma push people who aren’t being served well by the community out.
So in group this is natural to say. But external, directed at religious peoples, it’s not going to do the work of bringing them into your community. It’s not welcoming and it serves to push people to build walls rather than promote a change in thinking.
So i think you’re right in the context of being in community with a believer, but the comment wasn’t about that to begin with.
Alternatively, it’s hard to see how much religion is pushed until you’re outside of it. It’s like the opposite of getting a new (to you) car or phone. When you are, all of a sudden you realize how saturated everything is with it. It’s like living off the end of the runway of an international hub airport, there’s no rest.
I don’t deny there’s an element of groupthink within the Christian community that keeps its participants ensnared in the system while also alienating potential partakers, but adding the word ‘psychosis’ - like the user i responded to did - is rather disrespectful of the Christian position. You’d be falling victim to the outgroup homogeneity bias where you perceive individuals separate from your in-group as being alike and less diverse than yours. Just because you see many delusional participants does not mean all participants are equally as delusional.
Classifying belief in Christianity as psychosis simply shows one’s ignorance as they think one can only be religious if they’re “insane” which is just not the case since there are many who participate in Christianity with perfectly reasonable reasons.
I’m an atheist, but i think it’s high time, as atheists, we stopped making these stupid ad hominem attacks towards differing ideas.
is rather disrespectful of the Christian position.
Why is the christian position worthy of any respect al all? Labeling any idea thats “religion” as automatically worthy of reverence is simply privelage speaking, at best. At worst its deep stupidity protecting itself from analysis. You’re in a cult buddy. One that has inconsistent medieval ideas and a pedophilia problem. The fact that we even need to remind you of those absolute facts doesnt speak well of you.
It deserves its respect because it is largely practiced and is defended by many intellectuals. I’m an atheist just like you playing devil’s advocate. So let’s stop with the ad hominem
OK fair enough on the ad homs, you are right on that and I apologize. I would challenge you on the idea that religion been examined as rigorously and freely as every other philosphical ideas. Faith is belief without question, is it not? And the christian bible is a bit of a joke-- most if not all “holy” books are. But they are held up as a standin for morality and we are demanded to respect them, and not ask too many questions about them, usualyl at threat of violence or other coercions.
It amazed me that when you find religious strife, atheists are often singled out for the worst punishments.
I think its summarized pretty well with this quote of Bakker’s:
“Theres nothing the ignorant prize more than the ignorance of others.”
I think if people should generally mind their own business unless something directly impinges on their individual freedom to live. That includes not making rules about how women should use their bodies. Let women decide that themselevs, or you’re being a tyrant. (I am an old white guy). Your religion doesnt beleive in that, and wont examine it.
the only “god” you should be worshipping is yourself as an entity thats a constituent of a human society that differentiates us from the other animals. Everything else is someone trying to use you or get you to adopt their worldview.
Firstly, thank you for wishing to engage in peaceful discourse. And yes, I do agree with you on the fact that religion should be challenged just like any other philosophy. My point about according it respect was simply due to how the other users i responded to earlier resorted to ad hominems and not valid criticisms of the religion itself. Like i said, I don’t believe religion (especially Christianity) can be just thrown to the side as “group psychosis” considering how widespread it is and how much it’s defended by many intellectuals.
On the point of personal freedom (women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, sexual rights, etc), I 100% agree with your stance on Christianity infringing on those freedoms; especially considering the increasing liberalisation of society - which is a good thing - but i don’t personally think it’s a great rebuttal to Christianity’s validity. Like i said in another comment, Christianity is an absolutist philosophy, that means that regardless of the changing times or your personal feelings, its laws remain immutable. Does that mean that the Christian God is a jerk? Probably. But it’s what you’d have to deal with if he did exist.
Personally, i think the strongest argument against a God is simply the fact that he’s unpresent. As i believe about 90% of people are atheists simply because they don’t feel his presence. Every other argument is supplementary.
You have a very interestingly nuanced position in all this.
I’d be happy if some sort of god entity announced its existence and was interested in us and not malevolent. Why not. I’ve been wrong enough times in life that I wouldnt be surprised to be wrong again. Like you, I think its extraorinarily unlikely, especially with the reinforcement of the arc of history. In life you have to act according to the odds. If theres a .0001 chance of fish being in a pond, its not worth spending the time to fish there. I consider religion in a similar light. The odds of a god being there seem miniscule to me, and yet their followers are here all the time, and take an oversized stage for having such a miniscule chance of being correct, and they push their ideas on the rest of us, but seldom will entertain challenges to why they do these things. Like championing more reproduction but being against feeding the poor from their church kitchens (for some, not all of them).
My experiences in this regard are not average, I hope, so feel free to take what I say with whatever amojnt of salt you judge appropriate. I come from an intensely catholic upbringing. Even after my aunt was raped by a monk, who went unpunished. My parents’ generation of two large families stayed catholic even in light of that. The kids, universally, could not stay with the church upon hearing this. I think the perception of religion has gone through a generational change starting at genX, and churches broadly have not kept pace, as you alluded to. I am convinced, like you, that this is progress for humanity. I am willing to give religious people the respect for their ideas they hold dear commensurate with the liklihood of them being correct or even useful, although I deem them to be .00000000000000000001% useless compared to the chance of there being no deities involved with our affairs, and that we should own our world ourselves.
Taking the position gay/trans people shouldn’t exist is abhorrent.
You’d be falling victim to the outgroup homogeneity bias where you perceive individuals separate from your in-group as being alike and less diverse than yours. Just because you see many delusional participants does not mean all participants are equally as delusional.
The thing is, the second you let in a Nazi, it becomes a Nazi bar.
Taking the position gay/trans people shouldn’t exist is abhorrent.
Once again, you’re committing the same mistake as before. You’d be surprised to learn that the discourse concerning this is more nuanced than before.
Also, non-acceptance of LGBTQ groups isn’t actually a disproof of religion. I mean think about it. Christianity is an absolutist doctrine, that means that regardless of what you feel or how the times have changed, Christian law remains absolute. If an all powerful being deems it so that homosexuality is a sin, then all power to him really. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the reality you’re presented with if the Judeo-Christian God actually exists.
You’ve got the burden of proof turned around. Its not on us to diprove the existence of your mythical skyfairy. Its not our job to respect it in any way either. Feel free to start a religion that worships toe-jam if you want to. No one cares. What if I told you that lower intelligence correlates to higher religious fervor?
I’m not religious. Stop saying my mythical skyfairy. Also, you have to show me a source for your last claim and even if your last claim is true, correlation IS NOT causation.
Religion, nothing but group psychosis
Things atheists should stop saying 🔼
I agree with you.
People should absolutely be free to practice any religion they want in the US.
People shouldn’t be able to shove religion in your face or the opposite of athiests trying to shove non-religion in everyone’s face.
A true athiest is just as “delusional” as a true religious person. Both believe their idea is right on “beliefs.” No proof God or gods exist or not.
Most “athiests” are agnostic athiests, not gnostic athiest.
World would be a better place if “athiests” went more by agnostics.
Saying you’re athiest to a religious person is saying “I know your religion is wrong”. Saying you’re agnostic to a religious person is saying “I don’t know, but I don’t necessarily agree with you.”
There is currently no way to know. That is a fact, a hard truth. Thinking you have a way to know one way or the other is “crazy”
How does one shove non-religion in someone’s face?
Do they just exist?
You are technically correct that most people that call themselves atheists are agnostics. But that’s a little like saying that .999999999999999999 is 1; it’s close enough that it’s not going to make a difference in almost all cases.
If you have empirical, verifiable, falsifiable evidence that a god exists, then most atheists will change their opinion. A person that believes in a god believes despite a complete lack of evidence.
It’s not that an atheist is saying, “I know your religion is wrong”; it’s much closer to, "you have not presented any falsifiable evidence that your religion is correct.
It’s true that you can’t prove a negative. On the other hand, no evidence exists that would tend to prove that a god exists. The lack of evidence is quite damning, particularly since people have been trying to demonstrate the existence of a god for well over 8000 years. Miracles have almost entirely ceased in the age of forensics, modern medicine, and photography; it’s almost like they only exist when they can’t be documented.
No
No, Scientol0gy is criminal
No, The majority of atheists I am aware of keep it to themselves. The majority or Christians try to convert everyone they meet.
No, you’re speaking as a believer. A god would need to be proven first in order to be disproven.
Here we go telling people what to think again.
Saying you agree there is a possibility of a god or not and denying the existence wholeheartedly are two different things.
Yup
You can’t prove a negative, that’s a fact. Therein lies the fundamental flaw with theists, belief and opinion are not equal to facts.
The simple truth you cannot accept is understanding fact from fiction.
The only thing atheists should stop doing is tolerating the nonsense of the religidiots.
And what’s this nonsense?
Telling other people what to do, how novel
On point for religious nutters, though.
You think you’re smart with these quips?
Smarter than you? yes. Absolutely. You like to hunker down and talk to yourself with a very stern look on your face. You call it praying. You also like to let some old pedo effers dressed up in costumes waving a barely relevant internally inconsistent book of outdated medeival tribal ideas tell you what to do. You think accepting it without question at all, no matter how crazy it is-- faith-- is somehow a virtue. You’re a slave in a cult.
May your all powerful sky fairy strike me down if I’m telling any untruths here.
It was poignant, and you reacted to it like a sore loser, so yes, it was objectively clever
Reality is but a quip. If only it were that simple. Ignorance is bliss. Not equally nor any other fashion. There is belief in fairy tales and there is not.
I mean, it’s the community that keeps people around. The rules and dogma push people who aren’t being served well by the community out.
So in group this is natural to say. But external, directed at religious peoples, it’s not going to do the work of bringing them into your community. It’s not welcoming and it serves to push people to build walls rather than promote a change in thinking.
So i think you’re right in the context of being in community with a believer, but the comment wasn’t about that to begin with.
Alternatively, it’s hard to see how much religion is pushed until you’re outside of it. It’s like the opposite of getting a new (to you) car or phone. When you are, all of a sudden you realize how saturated everything is with it. It’s like living off the end of the runway of an international hub airport, there’s no rest.
I don’t deny there’s an element of groupthink within the Christian community that keeps its participants ensnared in the system while also alienating potential partakers, but adding the word ‘psychosis’ - like the user i responded to did - is rather disrespectful of the Christian position. You’d be falling victim to the outgroup homogeneity bias where you perceive individuals separate from your in-group as being alike and less diverse than yours. Just because you see many delusional participants does not mean all participants are equally as delusional.
Classifying belief in Christianity as psychosis simply shows one’s ignorance as they think one can only be religious if they’re “insane” which is just not the case since there are many who participate in Christianity with perfectly reasonable reasons.
I’m an atheist, but i think it’s high time, as atheists, we stopped making these stupid ad hominem attacks towards differing ideas.
Why is the christian position worthy of any respect al all? Labeling any idea thats “religion” as automatically worthy of reverence is simply privelage speaking, at best. At worst its deep stupidity protecting itself from analysis. You’re in a cult buddy. One that has inconsistent medieval ideas and a pedophilia problem. The fact that we even need to remind you of those absolute facts doesnt speak well of you.
It deserves its respect because it is largely practiced and is defended by many intellectuals. I’m an atheist just like you playing devil’s advocate. So let’s stop with the ad hominem
OK fair enough on the ad homs, you are right on that and I apologize. I would challenge you on the idea that religion been examined as rigorously and freely as every other philosphical ideas. Faith is belief without question, is it not? And the christian bible is a bit of a joke-- most if not all “holy” books are. But they are held up as a standin for morality and we are demanded to respect them, and not ask too many questions about them, usualyl at threat of violence or other coercions.
It amazed me that when you find religious strife, atheists are often singled out for the worst punishments.
I think its summarized pretty well with this quote of Bakker’s: “Theres nothing the ignorant prize more than the ignorance of others.”
I think if people should generally mind their own business unless something directly impinges on their individual freedom to live. That includes not making rules about how women should use their bodies. Let women decide that themselevs, or you’re being a tyrant. (I am an old white guy). Your religion doesnt beleive in that, and wont examine it.
the only “god” you should be worshipping is yourself as an entity thats a constituent of a human society that differentiates us from the other animals. Everything else is someone trying to use you or get you to adopt their worldview.
Firstly, thank you for wishing to engage in peaceful discourse. And yes, I do agree with you on the fact that religion should be challenged just like any other philosophy. My point about according it respect was simply due to how the other users i responded to earlier resorted to ad hominems and not valid criticisms of the religion itself. Like i said, I don’t believe religion (especially Christianity) can be just thrown to the side as “group psychosis” considering how widespread it is and how much it’s defended by many intellectuals.
On the point of personal freedom (women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, sexual rights, etc), I 100% agree with your stance on Christianity infringing on those freedoms; especially considering the increasing liberalisation of society - which is a good thing - but i don’t personally think it’s a great rebuttal to Christianity’s validity. Like i said in another comment, Christianity is an absolutist philosophy, that means that regardless of the changing times or your personal feelings, its laws remain immutable. Does that mean that the Christian God is a jerk? Probably. But it’s what you’d have to deal with if he did exist.
Personally, i think the strongest argument against a God is simply the fact that he’s unpresent. As i believe about 90% of people are atheists simply because they don’t feel his presence. Every other argument is supplementary.
You have a very interestingly nuanced position in all this.
I’d be happy if some sort of god entity announced its existence and was interested in us and not malevolent. Why not. I’ve been wrong enough times in life that I wouldnt be surprised to be wrong again. Like you, I think its extraorinarily unlikely, especially with the reinforcement of the arc of history. In life you have to act according to the odds. If theres a .0001 chance of fish being in a pond, its not worth spending the time to fish there. I consider religion in a similar light. The odds of a god being there seem miniscule to me, and yet their followers are here all the time, and take an oversized stage for having such a miniscule chance of being correct, and they push their ideas on the rest of us, but seldom will entertain challenges to why they do these things. Like championing more reproduction but being against feeding the poor from their church kitchens (for some, not all of them).
My experiences in this regard are not average, I hope, so feel free to take what I say with whatever amojnt of salt you judge appropriate. I come from an intensely catholic upbringing. Even after my aunt was raped by a monk, who went unpunished. My parents’ generation of two large families stayed catholic even in light of that. The kids, universally, could not stay with the church upon hearing this. I think the perception of religion has gone through a generational change starting at genX, and churches broadly have not kept pace, as you alluded to. I am convinced, like you, that this is progress for humanity. I am willing to give religious people the respect for their ideas they hold dear commensurate with the liklihood of them being correct or even useful, although I deem them to be .00000000000000000001% useless compared to the chance of there being no deities involved with our affairs, and that we should own our world ourselves.
cheers, good chat.
Taking the position gay/trans people shouldn’t exist is abhorrent.
The thing is, the second you let in a Nazi, it becomes a Nazi bar.
Also, yes we all know how indoctrination works.
Once again, you’re committing the same mistake as before. You’d be surprised to learn that the discourse concerning this is more nuanced than before.
Also, non-acceptance of LGBTQ groups isn’t actually a disproof of religion. I mean think about it. Christianity is an absolutist doctrine, that means that regardless of what you feel or how the times have changed, Christian law remains absolute. If an all powerful being deems it so that homosexuality is a sin, then all power to him really. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the reality you’re presented with if the Judeo-Christian God actually exists.
You’ve got the burden of proof turned around. Its not on us to diprove the existence of your mythical skyfairy. Its not our job to respect it in any way either. Feel free to start a religion that worships toe-jam if you want to. No one cares. What if I told you that lower intelligence correlates to higher religious fervor?
I’m not religious. Stop saying my mythical skyfairy. Also, you have to show me a source for your last claim and even if your last claim is true, correlation IS NOT causation.
I answered a simple question with a simple answer. You proved the point better than I ever could have. Now tell us how to think and talk again.