Thread: Why can't atheists leave believers alone?

Sum1bored asked a comparable question here, but I'll make a new thread for the answer (it's not about the definitions of atheism so it would be offtopic there).

Originally Posted by Sum1bor3d

Why can't Atheist be Buddhist and not attack on other Religion?

Atheism isn't a religion, so we can't say "you have your religion, we have our religion, let's not talk about it". Atheists reject all religions so we can't make exceptions, that wouldn't be honest. So I also reject metaphisical claims in Buddhism as nonsense, even if Buddhists may in fact be wonderful, peaceful people (that wasn't your question but I'd like to mention that for clarity).

If with attacking religions you mean arguing to people that it's nonsense to just accept what it says in some random book, then I don't see what's wrong with attacking religion. I think it's only healthy if people in a society feel the need to point out to eachother what they think is nonsense. Imagine the opposite, a society in which nobody really cares about eachothers ideas. Where people just nod "yea sure, we all have our own truth" at whatever people can come up with. Seen a UFO? "I'm sure you did, good for you!". You think the stars predict your future? "Sure base your decisions on the allignment of stars, that'll work out great!".
Wouldn't that be a society of zombies?

What if a close friend of yours suddenly converts to Scientology and starts selling his house and whatever he owns to buy 'courses' from the Scientology church? Would you say "sure, believe what you want, go ahead if you think that's the right thing"? Or would you care about him enough to try to convince him to reconsider his crazy behaviour?
What if that friend suddenly starts saying "people who don't believe in book X should be tortured in hell, it's my duty to fight against them"? Would you ignore it? Or would you try to talk that nonsense out of his head before he does something stupid based on this crazy idea?

Not attacking religion, in the sense of trying to persuade people that it's nonsense, is a sign of disinterest in society and lack of care for your fellow man/woman.

Let me go one step further: I think the world would be a better place if people would stop believing in any religion. People would find it easier to solve conflicts (especially international ones), they would have more understanding and respect for eachother and they would be able to make more sense of life. And people would spend their time and money to something more useful than building churches and learning nonsense texts from the bronze age by heart.

I think that atheists are concerned about the mentality of religious believers, or any other pseudo beliefs. they think that those beliefs without proof and understanding will breed other beliefs the same. Those beliefs come into conflict and start battles. Basically an atheist wants to stop those 'false' beliefs as they can affect people and probably slow down the evolution of humankind and cause painful harm.

But... (and I never say but, I say however, so that means this is my personal opinion). Religious believers look at atheists and think the same way, that they do not want atheists to 'go to hell', or 'be punished'. Atheists want to help religious people from harm, and religious people want to help atheists from harm. And that harm is equally as painful to see on both sides.

Both parties feel the same reality to themselves, the same truths. They are just opposite. Do you understand what I mean?

Because they are arrogant. For some reason they can't handle people believing what they want, they have to agree with them. Why, because that proves they are smarter. Arrogant

Last I checked I've never seen atheist picketing outside schools demanding they teach evolutionary theory, however I have seen Christians get in quite a fit over it being taught.

Actually I don't think I've ever heard of any major atheist lobying group trying to interfere in people's lives...

I agree. But atheists aren't blameless either.

Originally Posted by Orleander

I agree. But atheists aren't blameless either.

Atheist shouldn't be generalized, they are not unified in any way, and each atheist has a different view of the world. Of course like any group of people there will always be individuals which can act innapropriately. For atheist you just have to look at the suppression of religion in communist countries.

There's nothing wrong with how atheists act in critique against religion. It is as though religion feels it is perfect, and therefore need no fixing or critique. I am very much for freedom of speech, and whenever someone speaks their mind and someone gets hurt, it's not the fault of the one who spoke his mind, but the people who reacted irrational and violent against what the speaker said.

Atheists don't violently express what they think and mean, they express their concerns and distaste for the oppressive and dangerous form of religion. It's weird how Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris has been called "militant", as if their concerns and critique against religion is somehow harmful, ignorant and violent. It is not. Critique is a good thing, and when it works and people recognize their flaws, we have progress.

There's been so many misunderstandings as to what "militant" atheism is.

Oh boy. Another atheism missionary thread.

Tell me about it. When will people just let things be?

Obviously, how do you deduce that every single religious person think that it is perfect? And that they are arroganrt Orelander? Do you have any idea that religious people see atheists in the same light?

I say this because I hold its every young atheists problem. You've had an experience in your own life where religion has been in effect where you've been hurt. Or you are anti-conforming, or maybe just maybe, you can let go.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Tell me about it. When will people just let things be?

Obviously, how do you deduce that every single religious person think that it is perfect? And that they are arroganrt Orelander? Do you have any idea that religious people see atheists in the same light?

I say this because I hold its every young atheists problem. You've had an experience in your own life where religion has been in effect where you've been hurt. Or you are anti-conforming, or maybe just maybe, you can let go.

Most people react in awe because of atheistic critique against religion, even atheists themselves. It has been almost tradition to respect religion and try not to speak negative about it.

Your deduction of me having some personal issue against religion, or a grudge, is faulty. My reasons for critique against religion are merely objective and out of concern. History has proven idealistic thinking to be a road to bloodbath and horror. Though I would consider my efforts of trying to make people aware of this is probably futile, I wouldn't consider them wasted.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

But... (and I never say but, I say however, so that means this is my personal opinion). Religious believers look at atheists and think the same way, that they do not want atheists to 'go to hell', or 'be punished'. Atheists want to help religious people from harm, and religious people want to help atheists from harm. And that harm is equally as painful to see on both sides.

Both parties feel the same reality to themselves, the same truths. They are just opposite. Do you understand what I mean?

Good point, it makes sense.

My reply would be that the harm of religion is common and visable, it happens every day. Today millions of people hate eachother because of religion, millions more fear eachother. Today dozens of conflicts worldwide are unsolvable, and it's not unreasonable to claim that religion is the main factor behind that. For example Israeli's and Palestinians both regard the temple mount as sacred and unreplacable, neither party is allowed by their religion to compromise on it. If both parties were atheist then I guess at some point one side would offer "build me a new temple mount somewhere and compensate me with cash, then we can make a deal". Religion stands in the way of peace.
And I guess today dozens of people sold their car to throw money at the imposters of Scientology.

Compare that with the metaphysical claim that atheists will miss out on heaven. Which heaven, where is it, can you prove me that it exists? If not then it's a bit like going from door to door to warn people to wear tin foils on their head, otherwise the mindreaders will get you. Which mindreaders, how, why, proof? They probably have the best intentions too, but in practise I wouldn't say tin foil hats make a big contribution to humanity :wink:

Originally Posted by Obviously

There's nothing wrong with how atheists act in critique against religion. It is as though religion feels it is perfect, and therefore need no fixing or critique. I am very much for freedom of speech, and whenever someone speaks their mind and someone gets hurt, it's not the fault of the one who spoke his mind, but the people who reacted irrational and violent against what the speaker said.

Atheists don't violently express what they think and mean, they express their concerns and distaste for the oppressive and dangerous form of religion. It's weird how Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris has been called "militant", as if their concerns and critique against religion is somehow harmful, ignorant and violent. It is not. Critique is a good thing, and when it works and people recognize their flaws, we have progress.

There's been so many misunderstandings as to what "militant" atheism is.

I completely agree.

Yea 'militant atheist' is a very overused term. We don't have books that tell us our duty is to go out and convert, peaceful or otherwise. Many religions have precisely that, and often much more (like rules that tell them it's ok to mistreat atheists).
Communists have their books, but then communists are communists. Most of them are atheist as well, but that doesn't mean atheism has a relation with communism. It's not as if Marx invented atheism. It was invented say two millennia before Marx, but more importantly: most atheists invent it themselves. And even more important: most atheists never invent atheism, they just don't come up with gods, angels and fairies in the first place.

Originally Posted by Pendragon

I completely agree.

"Amen" is the word, Brother Pendragon.

Compare that with the metaphysical claim that atheists will miss out on heaven. Which heaven, where is it, can you prove me that it exists?

I see whtat you mean completley. But to religious believers it exists. So their concern for you is the same because their reality is the same as yours but opposite. They cannot be persuaded by your rationality, and you not by theirs either.

Unfortuantley for us all, where you ask for proof is where the relation breaks down and where the age old argument between religion and atheism begins.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

I see whtat you mean completley. But to religious believers it exists. So their concern for you is the same because their reality is the same as yours but opposite. They cannot be persuaded by your rationality, and you not by theirs either.

The ancient difference of fiction and reality. Concern without rational basis is closer to madness than it is to reason. You can go around with concerns for all kinds of unproven claims, or concern yourself with things that matter; this life, the choices you make and the things you know are real.

I can emphesize with the religious reason for concern, but it is pointless. Nothing's clear in the world of fiction, therefore it's meaningless to concern yourself with things you don't know (Gods will, judgement and hellfire). Concern yourself with what is present and right in front of you, because that is what matters at the moment.

I think one of the reasons atheists feel the need to debate religion is that we get defensive in a sense. I actually have written down a couple of verses from the bible that basically state, because i am a blasphemer, that 1. I will go to hell and there is no hope of forgiveness 2. i am an Antichrist 3. If i try to tempt anyone to become blasphemers i should be stoned to death.
So i think that atheists can't leave believers alone because believers cant leave atheists alone...

Both have kindness in their hearts.
Believers can't leave atheists alone because they are concerned that the unbelievers will burn in hell after they die.
Atheists can't leave believers alone because they are concerned that the believers will waste their lives to serve for the thing that is not real.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

I see whtat you mean completley. But to religious believers it exists. So their concern for you is the same because their reality is the same as yours but opposite. They cannot be persuaded by your rationality, and you not by theirs either.

The ancient difference of fiction and reality. Concern without rational basis is closer to madness than it is to reason. You can go around with concerns for all kinds of unproven claims, or concern yourself with things that matter; this life, the choices you make and the things you know are real.

I can emphesize with the religious reason for concern, but it is pointless. Nothing's clear in the world of fiction, therefore it's meaningless to concern yourself with things you don't know (Gods will, judgement and hellfire). Concern yourself with what is present and right in front of you, because that is what matters at the moment.

To you and other atheists, obviously. Thats what I'm trying to get across to you. You are starting the argument that is age old and we've seen many times before. Lets steer away from that argument and push our beliefs to oneside, because if we don't we cannot understand each other:

"Before you and I can describe each others tea, we must empty our own cups clearly and pour to taste each others tea".

You are letting emotion get into discussion again Obviously as many others do, that will compromise your intent for intelligent debate and severley hinder any chance of a viable conclusion. You are clearly not understanding what I meant. Pendragon does, I cannot understand why you do not. What is it you don't get?

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

To you and other atheists, obviously. Thats what I'm trying to get across to you. You are starting the argument that is age old and we've seen many times before. Lets steer away from that argument and push our beliefs to oneside, because if we don't we cannot understand each other:

"Before you and I can describe each others tea, we must empty our own cups clearly and pour to taste each others tea".

You are letting emotion get into discussion again Obviously as many others do, that will compromise your intent for intelligent debate and severley hinder any chance of a viable conclusion. You are clearly not understanding what I meant. Pendragon does, I cannot understand why you do not. What is it you don't get?

I think it is you who don't understand that everything isn't black and white. My point was that the religious basis for concern is their own. Nobody knows Gods' will or intent, and the madmans cry that "you have to believe or else" is simply absurd. Pendragons response was similar to mine which was basically the issue of "proof" and what really matters.

My points wasn't based upon personal convictions, they were objective, and if you can't refute them without invoking the "you wrong because you have emotions", then you have nothing to discuss. I would call this a red herring fallacy, and I suggest you adress the issue and not the opponent, so that we can reach a reasonable conclusion in the matter at hand.

You can't read emotions unless something is written like this:

"YOU STUPID MAN! YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW DAMN WRONG YOU ARE! NOTHING YOU SAY IS TRUE! YOU ARE SIMPLY DAMN WRONG!"

... for example, then there's probably a reason to suspect emotions overflowing You can see two logical fallacies in the above example: argumentum ad nauseam and adhominem. I guess argumentum ad nauseam is a fallacy used by you when you continuously accuse me for not being true, by the excuse that I'm letting my emotions take over me.

I give you two points in logical fallacies.

Emotions can be expressed in many ways without you even knowing it obviously. Words you use convey emotions, and I found them at least sub-consciously. So my brain is picking something up ortherwise I would not have mentioned your emotions coming into play. If you are also trying to express humour by using Hiramabbi as an example, I'm afraid I cannot indulge in that as I do not wish to hurt an innocent persons feelings.

Just to be grey and diplomatic here, can you please restate what it is that you are trying to convey to me please because I don't actually see what you are trying to say, can you sum it up for me please?

EDIT: Oh and I actually never said that because you were using emotions you were wrong. Neither did I say you were wrong at all. There is no wrong and right in this.

pendragon i cant agree with you more, well written

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Emotions can be expressed in many ways without you even knowing it obviously. Words you use convey emotions, and I found them at least sub-consciously. So my brain is picking something up ortherwise I would not have mentioned your emotions coming into play.

How can I express emotions when I don't feel any particular kind of emotion in this to begin with? Writings without faces and voices can be deciphered any way you like, unless it is blantly obvious.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

If you are also trying to express humour by using Hiramabbi as an example, I'm afraid I cannot indulge in that as I do not wish to hurt an innocent persons feelings.

Yes, perhaps it annoys me a little that trolls like Hiramabbi come here with unbacked and invalid claims with a smugness of a delusional parrot that they are. However, a little bored I was and decided to challange him, and everything happened as expected. Hardly anything to make any drama of.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Just to be grey and diplomatic here, can you please restate what it is that you are trying to convey to me please because I don't actually see what you are trying to say, can you sum it up for me please?

Yes I can, quite easily. It's the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

EDIT: Oh and I actually never said that because you were using emotions you were wrong. Neither did I say you were wrong at all. There is no wrong and right in this.

This has already been "flaming" enough. You might not have said I was wrong, but this reminds me of a parallell I once heard.

There was a restaurante, with good business and good income. Then there came a contestant restaurante, fair enough. But the contestant put up signs saying "No rats", which indirectly implied there were rats in other restaurantes. Not long after that, business wasn't that well anymore.

Whether you meant my points were invalid because of "emotions" or not, you followed with:

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

You are letting emotion get into discussion again Obviously as many others do, that will compromise your intent for intelligent debate and severley hinder any chance of a viable conclusion.

I am not blind. And also, what is this supposed to mean?

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

There is no wrong and right in this.

This is indirect and unclear. Please clarify.

If you are to respond to this post, please don't make it more personal. I'll only respond now if you have anything relevant to add to the discussion, or, topic at hand.

Personal? I'm not making this personal? Where did you get such an idea?! I'd never get personal with you and direct with you, you know we have an understanding of each other!

What is your point to what you said because the post title doesn't make sense to what your reffering to what you were talking about. The answer you gave me was the original question so I'm a bit confused.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Personal? I'm not making this personal? Where did you get such an idea?! I'd never get personal with you and direct with you, you know we have an understanding of each other!

What is your point to what you said because the post title doesn't make sense to what your reffering to what you were talking about. The answer you gave me was the original question so I'm a bit confused.

Actually, now I'm confused... Oh, the irony

What was it you wanted me to answer?

EDIT:

As for how I got the idea that it was personal, or leaning towards it, here's why. When you attack how the argument is made by saying emotions conflicts with the critical thinking rather than try and refute the argument and reason why this and this claim is wrong, it gives an indirect suggestion that this is not about the subject at hand, but about the one presenting the argument, thus it becomes personal.

I'm eager though, to continue a reasonable debate without deflections from the topic at hand. :P

Please keep it on topic, I see a lot of posts that aren't really leading anywhere.

Question to believers: do you have a problem with atheists trying to persuade religious people to drop their beliefs?

What if atheists were to use the same methods as religious groups to reach people, like using mass media to make a case against religion, opening explicitly atheist schools, going from door to door to speak to people, offering charity with the purpose of reaching people's harts and minds?

A somewhat related point: As Jinn noted many religions are openly hostile to atheists (at least in their scriptures, often in sermons and books as well). What if atheists would openly claim that they wish believers to suffer greatly in some way (an equivalent to the idea of burning in hell for not believing) or make statements that those who convert people to theism should be punished (an equivalent to the idea that at least exists in Islam, that converting people to atheism is a crime). Even if they wouldn't act on it but just make these statements it would probably be branded a violation of the human right of freedom of religion. If atheists would demand that claims in 'holy books' that go against the human right to not believe are deleted, as they are clearly offensive and threatening, how would you react?
In practise most believers probably don't agree that it's just for atheists to be mistreated or to be punished (during their lives or 'afterwards'). But would believers be willing to delete such offensive lines from their bibles/korans etc?

Sorry, I swore I wouldn't get involved with religion again but I couldn't resist this. Besides it's more about human behavior.

Why can't atheists leave believers alone? For me there is only one word: Creationists

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Please keep it on topic, I see a lot of posts that aren't really leading anywhere.

Yeah, like this whole thread.

Question to believers: do you have a problem with atheists trying to persuade religious people to drop their beliefs?

You are pushing your beliefs just like the evangelists do. Annoying.

What if atheists were to use the same methods as religious groups to reach people, like using mass media to make a case against religion, opening explicitly atheist schools, going from door to door to speak to people, offering charity with the purpose of reaching people's harts and minds?

Charity would be great. If you want to fund a school, have at it.

A somewhat related point: As Jinn noted many religions are openly hostile to atheists (at least in their scriptures, often in sermons and books as well). What if atheists would openly claim that they wish believers to suffer greatly in some way (an equivalent to the idea of burning in hell for not believing)

Who said anyone wished anyone else to burn in hell? If they think you are going to burn in hell, why should their belief bother you? You don't believe in hell.

or make statements that those who convert people to theism should be punished (an equivalent to the idea that at least exists in Islam, that converting people to atheism is a crime). Even if they wouldn't act on it but just make these statements it would probably be branded a violation of the human right of freedom of religion.

It seems your problem is with Islam. Why tar all religions with that brush?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Oh boy. Another atheism missionary thread.

Well, why not?? Theistic people do it since a couple of thousand years but do not want to hear from others with different perspectives?

But the main reason why atheists ("we") can not "leave the theists alone" is the reason how we think. There are no areas that are exempt from questioning. And this also includes religion. But theists seem to think that they are somehow entitled to "superior" respect. And calling atheists "militant" for asking quastions is a comfortable ad hominem used almost in unison with calling atheists "devil worshippers" and "evil". Conveniently Hitler and Stalin are evoked to prove that atheism automatically leads to horrible results. It is also conveniently overlooked that Hitler did not kill every single person in the concentration camps (he needed people that were raised in Christian faith and stood to their beliefs during killing Jews) and also that the Nazi Party was a surrogate for Christain beliefs during the time of the Third Reich (just take a look at the Nazi party rallies, choreoegraphed like a service with Hitler beeing the new Messiah and the trinity of Nazi Party, Germany and The Führer). But this just on a side note.

And what would you do if someone tells you: My Holy Book says that the inside of Pluto is inhabited by 27 pink-and green checkered Myrmecophagidae whistling the theme of the "Snowhite" animation picture and every time one of them farts, a volcano here on earth erupts? You say, yeah, cool that's the way to go, you are totally right!

Hardly, so why do you object to YOUR religion beeing subject to questioning? What makes it so special? This is true for most religions, as always your milage may vary. And about those damn "militant" atheists......did you hear one of them calling for the anihilation of all theists?? Hmmmmmmm, theists on the other hand openly call for the killing of all "non-believers" or believers in another deity. Just check youtube and other suspects. Yes, I know that you personally did NOT demand the killing of anyone but religious people do this on a regular basis. What makes your religion different from theirs, except the flavor of the divine beeing??

And for the record.......more often than not I experience the "not leaving alone" part the other way round.
Example: Outside the lab I was working in, standing there smoking. A collegue stops by and gives me a talk about how bad this is for my helth. You don't say! Then he goes on that Jesus is his lord and saviour and HE could help me quit smoking. The second I tell him I am an atheist his eyes pop out of his head and feels compelled to go on for 10 minutes how this is a big mistake and he feels sorry for me and that Jesus can save me (I didn't realize I needed saving) andsoonandsoforth. Sheesh! I tried to tell him that I came to this conclusion many years ago and that I am happy with the way I lead my life but he simply would not stop yakking about the LORD!

And this was not the first and certainly not the only time that theists disrespected my oppinion about the world and making condescending (not that I really care) statements about the blandness of atheist life (no hope, no morals, the whole "I feel sorry for you" scheme)

So, YES, as long as theists comment on topics they have no business commenting I will continue to comment on their beliefs and if the theists see this as insult to their religion, well then it's time for them to wake up and smell the flowers.

Well to be honest, why can't atheists damn well leave believers alone? On this forum I am regularly insulted and dubbed 'idiotic' because I believe in something that others do not. I get slandered for it, segregated for it, and generally feeling like my beliefs are being slandered constantly. You pick on religion ALL the time.

I've no problem with atheists being atheists, just f**king leave me and my other believers to our beliefs.

Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung

And calling atheists "militant" for asking quastions is a comfortable ad hominem used almost in unison with calling atheists "devil worshippers" and "evil".

How would you suggest we distinguish you from atheists who mind their own business?

Conveniently Hitler and Stalin are evoked to prove that atheism automatically leads to horrible results.

No, it is to counter your claims that religion is responsible for all the evils in the world.

Hardly, so why do you object to YOUR religion beeing subject to questioning?

Question all you want. Just quit nagging. You're boring.

did you hear one of them calling for the anihilation of all theists?? Hmmmmmmm, theists on the other hand openly call for the killing of all "non-believers" or believers in another deity. Just check youtube and other suspects. Yes, I know that you personally did NOT demand the killing of anyone but religious people do this on a regular basis. What makes your religion different from theirs, except the flavor of the divine beeing??

There you go again, tarring all religions with the same brush.

And for the record.......more often than not I experience the "not leaving alone" part the other way round.

So what? they are annoying so you should be too?

How would you suggest we distinguish you from atheists who mind their own business?

Well, so with the same right I will call all theists that do "not mind their own business" "militant". Fine with me.

No, it is to counter your claims that religion is responsible for all the evils in the world.

So you deliberately fail to see that Nazism was a religion by it's own right and making? They just replaced Godfather, Holy Spirit and Jesus with NSDAP, Deutschland and Hitler. Just different names for the same thing. Oh, and let's not forget, Stalin was attending the seminar for several years, shall we?

Question all you want. Just quit nagging

.

What a nice contradiction per se. What's the difference??

So what? they are annoying so you should be too?

Questions are only annoying if you have no good answer to them.

My apologizes for breaking in (I do that at times). :-D

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How would you suggest we distinguish you from atheists who mind their own business?

There are atheist who don't care and don't engage in debate, and there is those who do. In other words, there's weak atheism and there's strong atheism. Hardly anywhere near militant as claimed by some.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No, it is to counter your claims that religion is responsible for all the evils in the world.

Religion is responsible for the motivation of doing evil in the name of good. Hitler is a ridiculous argument, mostly because Hitler himself was religious. Stalin is also a ridiculous argument as it is an example on an ideology called communism which conveniently was atheist, or rather more accurately speaking, antireligious. One might even call communism a religion in itself.

Why can't everyone, atheists, theists, agnostics and antagonistics, just all mind their own business and beliefs?

The world would be a much better place for it and there would be much more room for improved discourse and debate, instead of a perpetual circle of conflicting beliefs which go nowhere and achieve nothing except an irritating rash!

Originally Posted by Selene

Why can't everyone, atheists, theists, agnostics and antagonistics, just all mind their own business and beliefs?

The world would be a much better place for it and there would be much more room for improved discourse and debate, instead of a perpetual circle of conflicting beliefs which go nowhere and achieve nothing except an irritating rash!

Sometimes in debates there will be conflicting views, not much to do about it, but there's no reason to completely stop the discourse. Solve the problem and move on, or agree to disagree.

I guess that was pretty much what you said :? Or am I confusing myself again?

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by Selene

Why can't everyone, atheists, theists, agnostics and antagonistics, just all mind their own business and beliefs?

The world would be a much better place for it and there would be much more room for improved discourse and debate, instead of a perpetual circle of conflicting beliefs which go nowhere and achieve nothing except an irritating rash!

Sometimes in debates there will be conflicting views, not much to do about it, but there's no reason to completely stop the discourse. Solve the problem and move on, or agree to disagree.

I guess that was pretty much what you said :? Or am I confusing myself again?

Good debate attempts to eliminate misconceptions and fallacy in order to get closer to the truth. In true debate both parties attempt to do this, and so opposition is simply a tool used to this end.

This is progressive debating

Whereas in debates involving belief systems which can neither be proved or disproved, and especially those of of a personal nature, such as a belief in a God or not. Debating is futile and only leads to anger and rarely leads to any truths.

This is regressive debating

Originally Posted by Selene

Why can't everyone, atheists, theists, agnostics and antagonistics, just all mind their own business and beliefs?

The world would be a much better place for it and there would be much more room for improved discourse and debate, instead of a perpetual circle of conflicting beliefs which go nowhere and achieve nothing except an irritating rash!

1. In general we can't because we are moral animals, and one of the things about morality is that it isn't just personal - it is normative, something you want the entire world to live by, and will fight for.

2. In general I think most atheists would simply like:

a. For religion not to be in a privileged position (compared to atheism of any sort - even the sort that simply ignores the matter)

b. Not to have any aspect of public, and publicly paid for, society being run or dominated by religious thinking - faith schools in the UK, 10 Commandments in courts in the US, Catholic Bishops telling us what science we can do or not do (on the basis of their relationship with god) and so on.... would you rather we were quiet about it?

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Selene

Why can't everyone, atheists, theists, agnostics and antagonistics, just all mind their own business and beliefs?

The world would be a much better place for it and there would be much more room for improved discourse and debate, instead of a perpetual circle of conflicting beliefs which go nowhere and achieve nothing except an irritating rash!

1. In general we can't because we are moral animals, and one of the things about morality is that it isn't just personal - it is normative, something you want the entire world to live by, and will fight for.

2. In general I think most atheists would simply like:

a. For religion not to be in a privileged position (compared to atheism of any sort - even the sort that simply ignores the matter)

b. Not to have any aspect of public, and publicly paid for, society being run or dominated by religious thinking - faith schools in the UK, 10 Commandments in courts in the US, Catholic Bishops telling us what science we can do or not do (on the basis of their relationship with god) and so on.... would you rather we were quiet about it?

I would rather they kept their 'personal' beliefs out of public affairs.
I should think or rather hope humanity had learned it's lesson where this is concerned.
Alas, it seems that we have been given useful brains that are little used

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Selene

Why can't everyone, atheists, theists, agnostics and antagonistics, just all mind their own business and beliefs?

The world would be a much better place for it and there would be much more room for improved discourse and debate, instead of a perpetual circle of conflicting beliefs which go nowhere and achieve nothing except an irritating rash!

1. In general we can't because we are moral animals, and one of the things about morality is that it isn't just personal - it is normative, something you want the entire world to live by, and will fight for.

2. In general I think most atheists would simply like:

a. For religion not to be in a privileged position (compared to atheism of any sort - even the sort that simply ignores the matter)

b. Not to have any aspect of public, and publicly paid for, society being run or dominated by religious thinking - faith schools in the UK, 10 Commandments in courts in the US, Catholic Bishops telling us what science we can do or not do (on the basis of their relationship with god) and so on.... would you rather we were quiet about it?

That's the thing. It's hard to have any belief system that doesn't demand action, and occasionally demand "normative" action, as you say. I'm interpreting that to mean action that must be carried out by all, rather than just a few, in order to work.

Atheism doesn't have any specific beliefs about what a person should or shouldn't do, while religion does. This is probably a concern for atheists who are afraid that they will be forced to go along with other people's demands for belief based, normative, action.

You see, it's religion that has a hard time living and letting live, when it comes to actual actions. Atheism doesn't let live very well in terms of what it says, but in terms of what it asks you to do, it's pretty un-oppressive.

GW claims he "prayed", and all of a sudden he's got this whole band wagon going that you have to either join or be labeled a traitor. It seems like religion is playing an over-interfering role in my life when it enables people like him.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Selene

Why can't everyone, atheists, theists, agnostics and antagonistics, just all mind their own business and beliefs?

The world would be a much better place for it and there would be much more room for improved discourse and debate, instead of a perpetual circle of conflicting beliefs which go nowhere and achieve nothing except an irritating rash!

1. In general we can't because we are moral animals, and one of the things about morality is that it isn't just personal - it is normative, something you want the entire world to live by, and will fight for.

2. In general I think most atheists would simply like:

a. For religion not to be in a privileged position (compared to atheism of any sort - even the sort that simply ignores the matter)

b. Not to have any aspect of public, and publicly paid for, society being run or dominated by religious thinking - faith schools in the UK, 10 Commandments in courts in the US, Catholic Bishops telling us what science we can do or not do (on the basis of their relationship with god) and so on.... would you rather we were quiet about it?

That's the thing. It's hard to have any belief system that doesn't demand action, and occasionally demand "normative" action, as you say. I'm interpreting that to mean action that must be carried out by all, rather than just a few, in order to work.

Atheism doesn't have any specific beliefs about what a person should or shouldn't do, while religion does. This is probably a concern for atheists who are afraid that they will be forced to go along with other people's demands for belief based, normative, action.

You see, it's religion that has a hard time living and letting live, when it comes to actual actions. Atheism doesn't let live very well in terms of what it says, but in terms of what it asks you to do, it's pretty un-oppressive.

GW claims he "prayed", and all of a sudden he's got this whole band wagon going that you have to either join or be labeled a traitor. It seems like religion is playing an over-interfering role in my life when it enables people like him.

I've often thought about this problem and the problems that are caused with differences in belief system, which i think is becoming especially relevant these days with the diversity of multi cultures that are living side by side in one country. The obvious one of course is Islam and the West.

I have also studies Rousseau's ideas and the Social Contract where he stipulated for a society and democracy to work we all had to agree on the same things, to the extent of putting aside our personal desires and voting for the greater good of all.

Great theory which unfortunately hasn't worked in practice!

The problem with this idea is that it doesn't take into account these differences in belief. And why shouldn't people have differences in belief? In a 'free world' ideology we should all be entitled to think what we want.

So i think in order for this to work there needs to be a two tier system.

If you ask most people whatever their beliefs or culture in what sort of society they would like to exist and how they would like to live, then a majority would surely agree that they wish to lead happy lives free from the threat of starvation and insecurity as well as war and strife and be able to live side by side with their neighbors at peace. Economically people should have the opportunity to work in their chosen fields but not have to work to the extent that there is no time left for anything else in order just to keep a roof over their heads.
There are many things such as these basic fundamental needs to life people can surely agree on.
And so this should be the fundamental tier to this system that formulates a societies politics and economical decisions.
The next tier should be more free and allow people to decide how to live in their family and social units based on their beliefs.

Of course for this system to work it would require these kinds of beliefs, such as religious, not to interfere in the first tiers decisions.

A society which increasingly becomes mixed with various beliefs has no other recourse other than to practice secularism in the first tier of it's decisions which involve politics, economics and law.

Failing to do this can only create a social disaster.

I actually thought that this section was for discussion between theists, just like the philosophy section is for philosophers, people interested in philosophy, and atheists (I see it that way). I guess I was wrong! I actually did not even bother to look at this section until a couple of days ago when my curiosity got the best of me.

Now that I realize that this is a flaming/debate section, I will try to participate. Yes....the storm is coming, but at least I know two of the moderators are on my side! I won't be banned any time soon. :-D

Originally Posted by Obviously

There are atheist who don't care and don't engage in debate, and there is those who do. In other words, there's weak atheism and there's strong atheism. Hardly anywhere near militant as claimed by some.

The double standard for what it takes to be considered "militant" or "extreme" is very annoying. No one even notices when a christian publicly says that believing in god is a good idea, but as soon as an atheist publicly says that believing in god is a bad idea they get labeled as "one of those militant atheists who pushes his ideas on everyone." If publicly espousing a belief and debating with those who disagree with you is "militant," most of the christian right would be Genghis Kahn on PCP.

If an atheist goes so far as to write a book that's highly critical of religion, he is a "militant atheist extremist". People don't generally start using that sort of language to describe theists until the theists are rioting in the streets, blowing things up, or shooting people who disagree with them.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Well to be honest, why can't atheists damn well leave believers alone? On this forum I am regularly insulted and dubbed 'idiotic' because I believe in something that others do not. I get slandered for it, segregated for it, and generally feeling like my beliefs are being slandered constantly. You pick on religion ALL the time.

I've no problem with atheists being atheists, just f**king leave me and my other believers to our beliefs.

Fine. Then, you should immediately lobby for your religion to begin paying taxes, going back at least a hundred years or so.

Get your religion out of politics, immediately.

Lets' start there. Get back to me when you've accomplished that and I'll have a lot more for you to accomplish before we leave your beliefs alone.

Q out of all the people I've met in this world, you are the worst, and I'm not suprised if no one listens to you, so I'm done listening to you. Push people enough and they'll push back. Get a freaking life your not accomplishing anything insulting people, because that is your objective of posting.

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Q out of all the people I've met in this world, you are the worst, and I'm not suprised if no one listens to you, so I'm done listening to you. Push people enough and they'll push back. Get a freaking life your not accomplishing anything insulting people, because that is your objective of posting.

Didn't get your god injection today? Aren't you supposed to be in church? Could you tell those fuckwits to pay their taxes while you're getting your latest fix?

How embarrassing.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Q out of all the people I've met in this world, you are the worst, and I'm not suprised if no one listens to you, so I'm done listening to you. Push people enough and they'll push back. Get a freaking life your not accomplishing anything insulting people, because that is your objective of posting.

Didn't get your god injection today? Aren't you supposed to be in church? Could you tell those fuckwits to pay their taxes while you're getting your latest fix?

I don't go to church, thats how small minded you are. Tax is your problem with religion now is it? Whats funking next? I don't control other people and their beliefs, I have my own religion so I am the only one in my religion. And all other religions I haven't a problem with, you do, say your beliefs in public I bet you'd get your mouth cut out, and not from religious people either. Seriously Q, learn some respect.

Oh and Q,

Yay... Latest drama. Interesting. I shall pay close attention from a distance.

We should have a soap opera. We'd make milllions and would be competitive with Coronation Street. We should call it: Science street: Clash of the bigheads. Or maybe it'd be better as a comedy?

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Tax is your problem with religion now is it?

Yes, it is. Haven't you been paying attention or do you need to be told something several times before it sinks in?

I don't control other people and their beliefs, I have my own religion so I am the only one in my religion.

So what? You're alone with your fairy tales. Tell us something new.

Seriously Q, learn some respect.

Seriously, bite me.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Tax is your problem with religion now is it?

Yes, it is. Haven't you been paying attention or do you need to be told something several times before it sinks in?

It was a rhetorical question. I thought someone with your intelligence would understand that .