NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading some of the posts on the Mormonism thread, I was very curious.

Why do so many posters have such hostility towards faith? I am not Mormon myself (Protestant), but was pretty offended by some of the comments posed to those who went on to explain their faith. I am also too computer illiterate to figure out how to put a poll on here, so I'll give a few options that I suspect may be the problem that many have with people of faith. I will also give my thoughts on why these reasons aren't valid grounds for attacking an entire group of people who happen to share common beliefs. Although my answers may lean more towards a defense of western theologies, I mean this post to inquire more generally about hostility towards all faith.

1) Religions have caused a great deal of war and oppression throughout time, including in our present time. (My response: So have perfectly secular ideologies such as facism and communism. Not that this makes it okay for people to go to war or be oppressed due to faith, but I don't think that it totally discounts the value of an ideology based on faith altogether. Plus, a great deal of these religious wars were actually mortal leaders who didn't really care about the faith and instead twisted it to lead the masses to do some horrendous things.)

2) Religious persons are seen as intolerant bigots. (My response: Yes, there are plenty of homophobes and misogynists that claim quite vocally claim their opinion is superior and all others should be punished. I, for one, am one of those Christians who take a more libertarian approach. I do my thing and you do yours. Plus, there is no earthly way of separating world history from its religious roots... although wars between faiths gave us a whole lot of bad they ultimately lead to the Enlightenment and a level of understanding and liberal thought that may not have ever come about otherwise.)

3) Believing in an invisible God is entirely irrational and anybody who has such belief must be a backwoods redneck dolt. (My response: This is by far the hardest to respond to because any response would have to rely on faith, thus making it circular. But I will try. There are many things we take for granted as scientific knowledge nowadays that are based on faith in experiments that we will never personally go out and replicate or observe. And there are many truths that were truths in 900 AD but were not known to be truths b/c there had not been developed a way to observe them scientifically. Just b/c something cannot be observed by our current level of science does not make it not exist. Now, I can see where a perfectly rational being would say "Given our level of scientific achievement and the lack of concrete proof of the existence of God, I choose not to believe." But that person could not make the absolute statement that God does not exist or that somebody who believes in God must be a gullible dolt. For one, the perfectly rational being has no way of experiencing whatever vision, revelation, feeling, moment, or whatever that led the "gullible dolt" to faith. Many very intelligent people throughout history had faith, some of them you could argue were socialized to believe but I'm sure that others came to faith later in life.)

Finally, with the exception of those people of faith that participate in 1 or 2 above, what does it hurt for somebody to have faith? Can't happy productive members of society who earn their own way in life attribute their happiness and success to following their faith? What makes it so abhorrent to you?

Because a lot of atheists are just as intolerant as the fundamentalists that they oppose.

Open the thread, click on thread tools and add poll.

Faith started it. Now you want to cry to mommy because we're not sitting still anymore?

Tough titties.

And you want to talk hostility? (http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find)

Beats me. As long as you don't hurt anyone else without their consent, I don't care what you believe.

In the end, none of us have any concrete idea of what's exactly out there; I've read and experienced things that convince me there's more than the physical world, and nobody's going to change that. Other people haven't, and they believe differently. I don't care...we'll all find out at one point or another. So, that's that...no point in arguing something where nobody has any evidence one way or another.

Because the majority (and I mean MAJORITY) of users on this forum are left-leaning atheists. Quite a few of them are "internet atheists," the ones who think that religion is evil and is mostly the cause of evil. (I call them internet atheists because you never meet them in real life.) When Christians are a tiny minority like here, the attacks against Christianity are many, but the defenders are few, so you see more open hostility because not many can refute it.

Because the majority (and I mean MAJORITY) of users on this forum are left-leaning atheists. Quite a few of them are "internet atheists," the ones who think that religion is evil and is mostly the cause of evil. (I call them internet atheists because you never meet them in real life.) When Christians are a tiny minority like here, the attacks against Christianity are many, but the defenders are few, so you see more open hostility because not many can refute it.

Game! Set! Match! Agerias. You have hit the nail on the head.

What kind of "hostility"?

If you make claims about what is true that other people find absurd, you should expect responses in accordance with that... especially on a discussion forum.

If you believe in a religion that's bigoted against non-believers, gays, women, etc. (not all of them are), you should expect hostility in response... and probably deserve it too.

Richard Dawkins

1) Religions have caused a great deal of war and oppression throughout time, including in our present time. (My response: So have perfectly secular ideologies such as facism and communism

sure, but not many people hold that religions are the only bad thing out there. so that doesn't really get you anywhere


Plus, a great deal of these religious wars were actually mortal leaders who didn't really care about the faith and instead twisted it to lead the masses to do some horrendous things.)

which is hardly a point in religion's favor, since that just means that religion is particularly prone to being thus twisted.

Finally, with the exception of those people of faith that participate in 1 or 2 above, what does it hurt for somebody to have faith?

well, they keep trying to teach stupidity as science for one...

Faith started it. Now you want to cry to mommy because we're not sitting still anymore?

Tough titties.

And you want to talk hostility? (http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find)


I suppose a simple "because of choice 1 and 2" would have said the same thing, but I guess I asked for it...

I agree that many people of faith have throughout history done some horrible things and many people on this very thread have made some pretty asinine comments in defense of their beliefs, but why would a self-proclaimed rational person give into this behavior and do the same thing back?

I'm really looking for some rational discourse on the subject (yes, some people of faith can be rational). Pointing out where my responses to those three reasons to have hatred towards faith fail. To be fair, I would prefer if those who decide to weigh in for faith don't break down into name-calling either.

I suppose a simple "because of choice 1 and 2" would have said the same thing, but I guess I asked for it...

I agree that many people of faith have throughout history done some horrible things and many people on this very thread have made some pretty asinine comments in defense of their beliefs, but why would a self-proclaimed rational person give into this behavior and do the same thing back?

I'm really looking for some rational discourse on the subject (yes, some people of faith can be rational). Pointing out where my responses to those three reasons to have hatred towards faith fail. To be fair, I would prefer if those who decide to weigh in for faith don't break down into name-calling either.

Asking for a rational debate on religion is like asking the left to cut taxes. It rarely happens.

What kind of "hostility"?

If you make claims about what is true that other people find absurd, you should expect responses in accordance with that... especially on a discussion forum.

I see your point. But pointing out flaws in one's beliefs is one thing, saying that their entire group of believers must be under the influence of drugs is quite another. That is the type of hostility to which I refer. And I guess while we're at it, maybe people of faith who also stoop to name-calling on here could give an account for their actions too.



If you believe in a religion that's bigoted against non-believers, gays, women, etc. (not all of them are), you should expect hostility in response... and probably deserve it too.

What if somebody believes in a religion that does think it to be the only true religion and does have a moral code that excudes homosexual behavior among other things, but also recognizes the worth of every human and explicitly instructs its believers to love those persons and to treat them with kindness? Shouldn't you separate the individual rogue believer from the faith that they purportedly believe in?

which is hardly a point in religion's favor, since that just means that religion is particularly prone to being thus twisted.

Everything is prone to being twisted.

saying that their entire group of believers must be under the influence of drugs is quite another.

This sounds like typical belligerent hyperbole to me.

As well ask, "Why the hostility towards people with whom you disagree?"

What if somebody believes in a religion that does think it to be the only true religion and does have a moral code that excudes homosexual behavior among other things, but also recognizes the worth of every human and explicitly instructs its believers to love those persons and to treat them with kindness?

Since it says the same for murderers and rapists...

Shouldn't you separate the individual rogue believer from the faith that they purportedly believe in?

No, not when their beliefs are reinforced by that faith and safeguarded by the safe ideological space homophobic religious teachings create for acts of hatred and violence.

Nietzsche would say that this is a prime example of our will to domination. We, as human beings wish to enforce our viewpoint on the largest amount of other people possible when we believe, unflinchingly, that what we have to say is true.

While Nietzsch doesn't adequately explain everything about life and human nature, I agree with this particular idea, and think that it quite nicely explains "why we can't all just get along."

Asking for a rational debate on religion is like asking the left to cut taxes. It rarely happens.

Lol, I just stay out of religious discussions when it turns ugly.

Faith started it. Now you want to cry to mommy because we're not sitting still anymore?

Tough titties.

And you want to talk hostility? (http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find)

im sorry, but the link that you gave has pretty much got to be regarded as meaningless. The people that conducted the poll only included 2000 people, but go on to clam that "most of America prefers..." Location is also very important, im sure that if one was to conduct a poll, polling families that live in the "bible belt", that yes, people are going to look down upon atheists.



and honestly, i dont think anyone can be truly atheist, people who clam to be haven't thought about it enough...and im not talking about if one supports main stream religion but really, think about it, why do even non religious people pray in times of stress?

Because a lot of atheists are just as intolerant as the fundamentalists that they oppose.

Give and take.

Lol, I just stay out of religious discussions when it turns ugly.

How often does it stay pretty?

Everything is prone to being twisted.

Like certain persons' argument tactics ... resulting in an eponymous maneuver?

I'm less hostile to faith than I am hostile toward people who attempt to impose their faith on those around them. Two of my co-bloggers and best friends are active Lutherans--I'm about as atheist as they come. And we even talk about religion. Now how does that work, do you figure?

As long as they don't talk to me about it or hurt anyone else, I don't care what they believe/don't. However if they do start preaching to me I will defend my airspace from hostile actions.

Because faith is unreasonable, which makes it appear just plain stupid to a lot of people who value or purport to value reason.

I'm less hostile to faith than I am hostile toward people who attempt to impose their faith on those around them. Two of my co-bloggers and best friends are active Lutherans--I'm about as atheist as they come. And we even talk about religion. Now how does that work, do you figure?
Heh, i was baptized lutheran by proxy for my godchild about two months ago. I'm not absolutely certain, but i'm somewhat sure i don't feel all that different.

:)

Because religion is one of the things that people very rarely talk about rationally or calmly. People prefer to scream their beliefs as loudly as they can. On the internet, that turns into a flame war.
Now, as an atheist, I feel no hostility towards religious people themselves, but some bits of faith I find lacking. The bible itself isn't too bad of a book, got some good parts in it and stuff. But than there's the bad stuff, and there's plenty of material to justify whatever you want. When something acts as an absolute moral guide for millions (or is it billions?) of people, those things are dangerous.
And also, it's very fun to yell obscenities and insults at people you'll never see and you can never suffer repurcussions from. Tends to bring out the worst in people.

How often does it stay pretty?

This particular one hasn't turned ugly yet however it is still young.

This particular one hasn't turned ugly yet however it is still young.

True. I actually had one that dealt with mutually respectful points of view, in a fashion ... perhaps you've seen it?
Hoo boy.

Because faith is unreasonable, which makes it appear just plain stupid to a lot of people who value or purport to value reason.

Winner of thread?

Because faith is unreasonable, which makes it appear just plain stupid to a lot of people who value or purport to value reason.

Faith may well be unreasonable, but in order to determine what is reasonable you must have faith in your own reasoning, that it is free from fallacies and incorrect or incomplete information.

Faith may well be unreasonable, but in order to determine what is reasonable you must have faith in your own reasoning, that it is free from fallacies and incorrect or incomplete information.

That isn't the kind of faith that we're talking about in the thread, this thread is about religious faith, not the sort of basic, functional assumptions necessary to be sane.

That isn't the kind of faith that we're talking about in the thread, this thread is about religious faith, not the sort of basic, functional assumptions necessary to be sane.

There is no difference. Faith is just faith, it doesn't matter what you have faith in, or what purpose that faith serves. It's just as unreasonable whatever you apply it to.

For example, during the first half of the second millenium A. D. most people had faith that the Earth was flat and that all the planets and the sun circled around it and that the stars were fixed on a huge rotating sphere. They had what was considered pretty good reasoning and proof for these conclusions, and had faith that their reasoning was correct, and was based on complete and correct information.

As time went on, and new information arose, and new methods of gathering information were found, they realized that they had been totally and completely wrong, and that their faith in their reasoning had been unreasonable and unfounded.

Because people fear what they don't understand.

There is no difference. Faith is just faith, it doesn't matter what you have faith in, or what purpose that faith serves. It's just as unreasonable whatever you apply it to.

But one is necessary the other is not

Their is a reason that a non logical axiom's are limited to bare necessity rather then convenience

Because people fear what they don't understand.
The only thing I fear is the stupidity their faith is motivating them to partake in

They may or may not be stupid without faith but they sure as hell seem to be getting tips on what to focus on

But one is necessary the other is not

Their is a reason that a non logical axiom's are limited to bare necessity rather then convenience

Necessary for sane life or not, the fact remains that faith in all its forms is unreasonable and irrational.

The only thing I fear is the stupidity their faith is motivating them to partake in

They may or may not be stupid without faith but they sure as hell seem to be getting tips on what to focus on


It doesn't take having faith to do stupidity. I mean, I could be a idiot atheist that gets all his info from militant Atheist sites about bombing churches, or something.

It doesn't take having faith to do stupidity. I mean, I could be a idiot atheist that gets all his info from militant Atheist sites about bombing churches, or something.
I know thats why I put the second part in there

That being said at least that militant atheist keeping his stupidity to himself in your example

But one is necessary the other is not

Yes, but where do you draw the line between unnecessary and necessary?

Faith is irrational, hence my hostility towards it.

The only thing I fear is the stupidity their faith is motivating them to partake in


you know..not everyone who has faith is STUPID. You are constantly ragging on people who have faith. So what? They have a different view than you. That doesn't make a person any more stupid. Or are you one of those people that think so damn highly of yourself that you are above all others and everybody is an idiot that doesn't think like you?

SOME people who have faith are actually happier calmer people. I know a few. And if it makes them feel better about life's outlook..good for them. I sure as hell don't think they are stupid.

Finally, with the exception of those people of faith that participate in 1 or 2 above, what does it hurt for somebody to have faith? Can't happy productive members of society who earn their own way in life attribute their happiness and success to following their faith? What makes it so abhorrent to you?I don't have a problem with the superstitious, as long as they don't hold and use their superstitions as a model for the world and the people in it.

Not because the consequences of doing it are invariably negative. They aren't always. But because it's unethical to force your own irrational bollox on other people.

And you're right. Superstitious people are far from the only ones doing it. Self-proclaimed commies have killed millions attempting to make the world & it's inhabitants, fit their idea of what the world should be. Capitalists to this fucking day kill millions of people in the name of a 'free' market and an 'invisible hand', never quite grasping that redistributing wealth through the use of force, is no different from redistributing wealth through the force of a state or whatever...

Most people are assholes. The religious assholes only stand out because their justifications are more obviously insane than the justifications of most other assholes.

There is no difference. Faith is just faith, it doesn't matter what you have faith in, or what purpose that faith serves. It's just as unreasonable whatever you apply it to.

For example, during the first half of the second millenium A. D. most people had faith that the Earth was flat and that all the planets and the sun circled around it and that the stars were fixed on a huge rotating sphere. They had what was considered pretty good reasoning and proof for these conclusions, and had faith that their reasoning was correct, and was based on complete and correct information.

As time went on, and new information arose, and new methods of gathering information were found, they realized that they had been totally and completely wrong, and that their faith in their reasoning had been unreasonable and unfounded.

But they didn't actually examine their reasoning-- had they actually look at the evidence for a heliocentric system instead of condemned the person who argued for it, they would have been able to conclude that they had previously been wrong. It turns out that their beliefs weren't based on reason at all. (this is pretty much what you said, I believe).
Now, a part of reason is being able to change your mind when new evidence presents itself, and, indeed, accepting that there is some possibility, however, slim, that you are currently incorrect about something. Religious people almost never do this about their religion, therefore it is far more irrational than, say, a scientific belief.

Anyway, to the topic at hand, I'd like to quote myself from another thread:

Why is it that it takes a much less radical position for an atheist to be a radical atheist than it does for a theist to be a radical member of their religion?

For a theist to be labeled "radical" or "militant" they have to be bombing abortion clinics or at the very least preaching about how they would put various groups of sinners to death, were they given the chance to run the theocracy they desire.

For an atheist, however, it only takes "I think your belief is delusional, and here's my evidence" and it's suddenly "Why are you so confrontational and militant?! What has anybody else's beliefs ever done to you?!"

I mean, I've heard plenty of sermons from very mainstream pastors saying that non-believers will burn in hell for all eternity. It's kinda one of the key beliefs of the mainstream religions. They talk about how without Christ, you will suffer unimaginable torment without end for your thoughtcrime. Nobody calls them "militant." Even Dawkins, who theists will have you believe is militant, doesn't wish hellfire upon anybody.

Now, I do have my own idea about how this arose-- largely because atheists never have burnt people at the stake in the name of nonGod, so that standard of comparison is off. Additionally, the fact that people in general think it's okay to be prejudiced against atheists, but religious beliefs are "sacred," so it is "extreme" to criticize them.

Possibly because the core idea of certain religions - that one should trust the words of God over everything else - is considered scary by many. Especially when looking at some of those words and the complete and utter lack of anything supporting them - except the "it is in my holy scriptures".

Possibly because many believers are hypocrites, picking and choosing only the bits of religion that suit them. An often cited example "gays are an abomination and therefor evil, but I will have another helping of shellfish please" only scratches the surface: whole core ideas are ignored. Christianity is not purely a religion of peace and compassion, no matter how the followers wish it to be one. If you are going to let your own morals overwrite the ones God offers you should stop calling yourself a follower.

So.. in short: because religion is scary and makes its followers behave in scary ways.

3) Believing in an invisible God is entirely irrational and anybody who has such belief must be a backwoods redneck dolt.
My response: This is by far the hardest to respond to because any response would have to rely on faith, thus making it circular. But I will try. There are many things we take for granted as scientific knowledge nowadays that are based on faith in experiments that we will never personally go out and replicate or observe. And there are many truths that were truths in 900 AD but were not known to be truths b/c there had not been developed a way to observe them scientifically. Just b/c something cannot be observed by our current level of science does not make it not exist...
I just think that there is no need to assume something additional. As far as we can tell with the current level of knowledge in things like physics, chemistry, biology etc there does not appear to be a need for a guiding force. Our world works without God, so to speak. Usually when you revise your knowledge, you do it because there's some mistake in your model, if there are phenomena which can't be explained by how you think things work. As far as I'm aware, there have been no troubles with our understanding of the universe that would have suggested the need for an intelligent, omnipotent* being that cares.

So the question is why we would want to add something to the model when there is no reason to.

The answer is of course "because some people want to", and that's fine with me. I'm an atheist, but the tolerant kind.

*And by the way, I never got the idea of omnipotency. Whenever I present the old paradox (can God microwave a Burito so hot he can't eat it?) people answer with things like "well, human logic doesn't apply to God". I suppose that's where faith kicks in, but still, it's a pretty unsatisfying answer.

Richard Dawkins

Annoying smug git but he's entirely correct of course. I think its just hes lacking a sense of humour or something....Hes best when put against some smug religous type, as hes invariably smarter and the smug factor is sort of cancelled out....

you know..not everyone who has faith is STUPID.

Nor did I say they were, you are reading what you want into my statement the statement right after the one you quoted said that people are stupid with or without faith but their faith is directing them to interfere in my life with their stupidity

In this case it is not the faith that is necessarily stupid.

You are constantly ragging on people who have faith. So what?

No I do not

They have a different view than you. That doesn't make a person any more stupid. Or are you one of those people that think so damn highly of yourself that you are above all others and everybody is an idiot that doesn't think like you?

No

SOME people who have faith are actually happier calmer people. I know a few. And if it makes them feel better about life's outlook..good for them. I sure as hell don't think they are stupid.
Nor do I

Yes, but where do you draw the line between unnecessary and necessary?

In this case "necessary" means the smallest bare component with out which rational discourse could not take place

Thats what an axiom is

Because the majority (and I mean MAJORITY) of users on this forum are left-leaning atheists. Quite a few of them are "internet atheists," the ones who think that religion is evil and is mostly the cause of evil. (I call them internet atheists because you never meet them in real life.) When Christians are a tiny minority like here, the attacks against Christianity are many, but the defenders are few, so you see more open hostility because not many can refute it.

Funnily, each time in NSG history there was a poll on people's faith, the vast majority would confess to be believers...

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins posts here? Really? What's his nation's name?

Asking for a rational debate on religion is like asking the left to cut taxes. It rarely happens.

I thought it was the religious most of all who claim that religion isn't a matter of rationality but of faith?

It doesn't take having faith to do stupidity. I mean, I could be a idiot atheist that gets all his info from militant Atheist sites about bombing churches, or something.

I think that's the main difference, though, isn't it?
For a religious person to be called millitant, aggressive and hostile, they need to have a website like godhatesfags.com, shoot doctors or fly planes into buildings to kill non-believers.
For an atheist to be called millitant and hostile, it's quite enough if he says he considers believe in a higher being irrational and can't help but wonder at the mindsets of people who believe in irrational concepts like that. No need to go bomb anything, really.

And I've yet to see an atheist group calling for violence against believers. ;)

Heh, i was baptized lutheran by proxy for my godchild about two months ago. I'm not absolutely certain, but i'm somewhat sure i don't feel all that different.



If you are a godparent, I hope you will take that role seriously. You are responsible for the religious education of that child, if the parents are negligent in such.

However you define "religion" you have a duty to attend to the child's education. It is sanctified by their church. How could knowledge of the FSM be anything but "religious education" ... ?

Plus, you seem like the sort of person who would educate children, given the chance.

And I've yet to see an atheist group calling for violence against believers. ;)

Technically Stalin and some other communist leaders do fit that description...

Technically Stalin and some other communist leaders do fit that description...

I knew someone would get me on a technicality ;)
Technically, Stalin and the Spanish Inquisition did about the same amount of damage, I guess. Can we call it even on that account?

I knew someone would get me on a technicality ;)
Technically, Stalin and the Spanish Inquisition did about the same amount of damage, I guess. Can we call it even on that account?

Depends on how one defines "damage" ;)
Maybe some people are willing to argue that one motive for killing and censorship is better than the other ?

After reading some of the posts on the Mormonism thread, I was very curious.

Why do so many posters have such hostility towards faith? I am not Mormon myself (Protestant), but was pretty offended by some of the comments posed to those who went on to explain their faith. I am also too computer illiterate to figure out how to put a poll on here, so I'll give a few options that I suspect may be the problem that many have with people of faith. I will also give my thoughts on why these reasons aren't valid grounds for attacking an entire group of people who happen to share common beliefs. Although my answers may lean more towards a defense of western theologies, I mean this post to inquire more generally about hostility towards all faith.

1) Religions have caused a great deal of war and oppression throughout time, including in our present time. (My response: So have perfectly secular ideologies such as facism and communism. Not that this makes it okay for people to go to war or be oppressed due to faith, but I don't think that it totally discounts the value of an ideology based on faith altogether. Plus, a great deal of these religious wars were actually mortal leaders who didn't really care about the faith and instead twisted it to lead the masses to do some horrendous things.)

2) Religious persons are seen as intolerant bigots. (My response: Yes, there are plenty of homophobes and misogynists that claim quite vocally claim their opinion is superior and all others should be punished. I, for one, am one of those Christians who take a more libertarian approach. I do my thing and you do yours. Plus, there is no earthly way of separating world history from its religious roots... although wars between faiths gave us a whole lot of bad they ultimately lead to the Enlightenment and a level of understanding and liberal thought that may not have ever come about otherwise.)

3) Believing in an invisible God is entirely irrational and anybody who has such belief must be a backwoods redneck dolt. (My response: This is by far the hardest to respond to because any response would have to rely on faith, thus making it circular. But I will try. There are many things we take for granted as scientific knowledge nowadays that are based on faith in experiments that we will never personally go out and replicate or observe. And there are many truths that were truths in 900 AD but were not known to be truths b/c there had not been developed a way to observe them scientifically. Just b/c something cannot be observed by our current level of science does not make it not exist. Now, I can see where a perfectly rational being would say "Given our level of scientific achievement and the lack of concrete proof of the existence of God, I choose not to believe." But that person could not make the absolute statement that God does not exist or that somebody who believes in God must be a gullible dolt. For one, the perfectly rational being has no way of experiencing whatever vision, revelation, feeling, moment, or whatever that led the "gullible dolt" to faith. Many very intelligent people throughout history had faith, some of them you could argue were socialized to believe but I'm sure that others came to faith later in life.)

Finally, with the exception of those people of faith that participate in 1 or 2 above, what does it hurt for somebody to have faith? Can't happy productive members of society who earn their own way in life attribute their happiness and success to following their faith? What makes it so abhorrent to you?

1) faith in general incites belief in supernatural phenomenons, and so gets in the way of understanding the world we live in.

2) abrahamic faith is objectionnable (to me) for quite a few reasons, like the fact that god is justified in doing some really unjustifiable things (read the bible, it's all in there).

3) hostility towards faith doesn't imply hostility towards the faithfull.

4) those numbers are unrelated to yours

5) totalitarist ideologies are objectionnable too.

Why do so many posters have such hostility towards faith?
For me it's because, in faith, many people assert that uncertainty can be wished away. When people state that they have faith, they generally devolve into a state of complacency concerning the exploration of the nature of that which they claim faith in. And this is such a sad state of affairs. In establishing a system of belief and adhereing strictly to that system, one misses out on the innumerable possibilities that lie outside of that system. One cannot, ever, hope to acquire a full and complete system of true belief, but it is a fundamental mistake to think that we should ever be satisfied with any incomplete system. I think we should constantly be honestly open to and aiding in challenges to that system that we hold, and not allow ourselves to slip into the mindset that says "Well, here's what I believe, that's good enough for now".

It's also because many people see Faith as a necessity in finding God. God is not what people have faith in. This is a fiction designed by those who fear that the root cause of our awareness God is not in the plethora of stories or histories or even in the epistemologic evaluation of reality itself but in the active and personal meeting with the divine entity directly. What people have faith in is the systems of explanation that they have been persuaded accurately depict that which they have been exposed to, and in doing so belittle the God that they claim to "believe" in.

Depends on how one defines "damage" ;)
Maybe some people are willing to argue that one motive for killing and censorship is better than the other ?

Possibly. I wouldn't claim that, though.

Personally, I dislike any kind of irrational dogma, no matter if it's religious, political or social.

Umm I think I know the answer to this one. Is it because everybody thinks they are right, and everybody else wrong?

Nor did I say they were, you are reading what you want into my statement the statement right after the one you quoted said that people are stupid with or without faith but their faith is directing them to interfere in my life with their stupidity


You need to go back and read what you wrote. That is not what you said in that second statement.

No I do not



Yes, you do.
I'd do a search and pull up a few things but don't know how far back it can go (beyond the 100 posts) and don't feel like trying at the moment.

Richard Dawkins posts here? Really? What's his nation's name?

Peepelonia. ;)

You need to go back and read what you wrote. That is not what you said in that second statement.


I did go re read it just to make sure it did not say something I did not intend it to but I will break it down


They may or may not be stupid without faith
This first part is to emphasize that faith is not what is causing the supidity as they may be stupid with or without faith

but they sure as hell seem to be getting tips on what to focus on
And this last part was to point out that either way there are stupid people and they seem to be receiving directions on where to focus their stupidity

The stupidity I was really trying to get to in the statement was sticking their noses in other peoples business

I am sorry if this is was not clear the first time around I hope it is clear after the break down



Yes, you do.
I'd do a search and pull up a few things but don't know how far back it can go (beyond the 100 posts) and don't feel like trying at the moment.

Please do I would like to see this

Here's my opinion of this:

Most people are assholes. A significant number of assholes are religious, and claim that all non-believers & sinners (which usually excluded the sins that THEY do) will burn in Hell forever. The atheist assholes don't have a fiery pit to threaten people with, so all they can do is call people stupid, but if they HAD a pit, they'd use it.

Religious assholes who rule nations tend to use religion as an excuse for atrocities. Non-religious assholes who rule nations use other excuses, but they still commit just as many atrocities.

Most people on this board live where Christians are the majority, so they see more Christian assholes. If they lived in Islamic countries, they'd see a lot of Muslim assholes. And if a religious person was surrounded by atheists, guess which kind of asshole they'd be complaining about.

*snip*

You? Are you the asshole?

Is this a quiz?

:)

99% of the "faith" I encounter is boring, unimaginative, bossy, or otherwise annoying. I also live in a country where boring, unimaginative, sexphobic "faith" is rammed into every one of my bodily orifaces at every opportunity.

All this might not be enough to make me particularly hostile towards faith, but then I end up having piles of concern trolls asking me why, oh why, don't I like "faith"? Whence commeth my mysterious dislike of "faith"? What did faith ever do to me? Am I saying that all people of faith are EVIL?!

Let's just quit with the BS, shall we? You all know exactly why the godless are often hostile toward "faith." You've heard it all before. You've been told countless times before. You just don't like it.

Funnily, each time in NSG history there was a poll on people's faith, the vast majority would confess to be believers...
Yeah, the whole myth of Goddless General Forum is just whining.

It's not that there are a lot of us, kids, it's that we're not as passive and quiet as the atheists in your day-to-day lives.

Peepelonia. ;)

Jesussaves actually.

Jesussaves actually.

Bwhahahahah! man now i'm gonna have to get meself a badge, 'I'm Richard Dawkin's'

You know I work for the company that made 'The root of evil' and 'The enimies of reason'. I haven't met him yet but if he makes any more TV for us, perhaps I'll have a wee chat with the producer. Maybe I can sell him a badge!

Friend, I've tried to find the solution to the "headbuttery" that seems to only be growing between the religious and atheists. Throw in any non-practicing agnostics who get dragged into the melee and we have ourselves one bona fide shitstorm.

I've created several threads on the subject, trying to figure out why people get so damned vitriolic about the issue, why two guys who were having a friendly discussion about pizza toppings one second turn to insults the second.

What have I learned?

- The vast majority of people on this fine message board are of the "live and let live" variety. Most are atheist, some are agnostic and some are religious, and yet they live by a code of "You're Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/Atheist/Etc. Okay, that's cool. I don't totally agree with you, but whatever. Wanna get a pizza?" They respect eachother's decisions and viewpoints, even while not completely agreeing, and life goes on.

- And then there are dicks. DICKS! These are the folks who, regardless of faith, race, nationality, or other factors, just LOVE to make grandiose and sometimes inflamatory statements about everything that does not fall in line with their own very narrow viewpoints. Essentially, they disagree with everything that THEY ARE NOT. At the very mention of anything they find offensive, even if in the greater context it has nothing to do with the conversation, they will transform into full fundy/darwin mode and ROLL OUT. They will ridicule, they will inflame and they will be absolutely secure in the fact that in their own little world, they are absolutely correct. In effect...we get people who are, for all intents and purposes, the spiritual equivalent to the FANBOY! People who need to use the internet to get their point across, because in the real world they'd get their asses censured.

Now...this is not to say that a member of faction one (the live-and-let-live guys) cannot have strong opinions and become forceful about them, far from it. The difference is, is where the live-and-let-live guys need to be prompted in some fashion (someone is pushing religious legislation, someone is persecuting a particular sect, etc.), these spiritual fanboys just yell and scream and/or mock and inflame, for the sheer hell of it.*

This board, I like to think, is populated more by the relaxed type. And all the real mocking and flamebaiting is coming from all the same people, a relatively small minority.

And the thoughts of this one poster, are complete. And it is just that, an opinion.

...and I am going out on a hueg limb here, this is the longest time I've taken on a single post in months, so this had better not come back to bite me in the ass.

*Please note that there are always exceptions. One could argue that groups, like the KKK, for instance deserve nothing BUT ridicule, even from reasonable people. The point...I really have none.

*cookie*

Friend, I've tried to find the solution to the "headbuttery" that seems to only be growing between the religious and atheists. Throw in any non-practicing agnostics who get dragged into the melee and we have ourselves one bona fide shitstorm.

I've created several threads on the subject, trying to figure out why people get so damned vitriolic about the issue, why two guys who were having a friendly discussion about pizza toppings one second turn to insults the second.

What have I learned?

- The vast majority of people on this fine message board are of the "live and let live" variety. Most are atheist, some are agnostic and some are religious, and yet they live by a code of "You're Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/Atheist/Etc. Okay, that's cool. I don't totally agree with you, but whatever. Wanna get a pizza?" They respect eachother's decisions and viewpoints, even while not completely agreeing, and life goes on.

- And then there are dicks. DICKS! These are the folks who, regardless of faith, race, nationality, or other factors, just LOVE to make grandiose and sometimes inflamatory statements about everything that does not fall in line with their own very narrow viewpoints. Essentially, they disagree with everything that THEY ARE NOT. At the very mention of anything they find offensive, even if in the greater context it has nothing to do with the conversation, they will transform into full fundy/darwin mode and ROLL OUT. They will ridicule, they will inflame and they will be absolutely secure in the fact that in their own little world, they are absolutely correct. In effect...we get people who are, for all intents and purposes, the spiritual equivalent to the FANBOY! People who need to use the internet to get their point across, because in the real world they'd get their asses censured.

Now...this is not to say that a member of faction one (the live-and-let-live guys) cannot have strong opinions and become forceful about them, far from it. The difference is, is where the live-and-let-live guys need to be prompted in some fashion (someone is pushing religious legislation, someone is persecuting a particular sect, etc.), these spiritual fanboys just yell and scream and/or mock and inflame, for the sheer hell of it.*

This board, I like to think, is populated more by the relaxed type. And all the real mocking and flamebaiting is coming from all the same people, a relatively small minority.

And the thoughts of this one poster, are complete. And it is just that, an opinion.

...and I am going out on a hueg limb here, this is the longest time I've taken on a single post in months, so this had better not come back to bite me in the ass.

*Please note that there are always exceptions. One could argue that groups, like the KKK, for instance deserve nothing BUT ridicule, even from reasonable people. The point...I really have none.

*cookie*

You couldn't be more wrong! Ohh and why do you hate America?:D

You couldn't be more wrong! Ohh and why do you hate America?:D

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...Why...?

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...Why...?

Ahhh umm just a gental welcome back?

Frankly, I think it has a lot to do with self-validation... The same reason some religious fanatics push others to convert to their own system.

In fact, I'll take it a step further. I think in a surprisingly high number of cases, on some level people who launch such an attack WANT to be proven wrong so that they CAN convert and save face by being "enlightened" as opposed to swallowing their pride.

I'm not seeing much of a hostility amongst most of the posters here. There are a select few that like to troll religious threads (UB for example), but most are more courteous. A lot of people, however, disagree with much of the faith-inspired legislation and organisations that influence our societies, and I see no reason why they can't be vocal about it. Especially in condemning bigoted beliefs. Very few actually attack the faithful, they are concerned with the faith that the faithful allows themselves to follow. Why they do follow may be under scrutiny also.

Richard Dawkins posts here? Really? What's his nation's name?

Refused-Party-Program

....they are concerned with the faith that the faithful allows themselves to follow. Why they do follow may be under scrutiny also.hmmm...

speaking for Myself, I am not concerned at all with other peoples faiths.. and NO I would rather not submit others personal reasons to scrutiny.

Technically Stalin and some other communist leaders do fit that description...
Emphasis mine. I doubt it had to do as much with atheism as with communism. To reference atheists who were also communists is a major source of error; what about within non-communist atheists?

As for the subject at hand, I would agree that hostility towards faith is probably a retaliation to hostility towards a lack thereof, although in this case I don't think Travaria as an individual deserves it.

BTW, claiming to know the existance of a god (or gods) isn't the same as claiming to know its (or their) intentions.

Umm I think I know the answer to this one. Is it because everybody thinks they are right, and everybody else wrong?

Cept the people that agree with me, of course.

Cept the people that agree with me, of course.

No I think you are wrong!:D

But Faith's a lovely girl!
That cute button nose, the charming English accent, those 32G tits...

No I think you are wrong!:D

You delusional fool! *punches*

I don't think there's a problem with faith per se, but rather a problem with the constant exclusion and violence faith inspires. Add in the religious' attempts to subvert our society to their own interpretation of their imaginary friend's desires and it gets rather grating to be on the receiving end of religion.

There's no shortage of people, anywhere, who would twist the world so that only their faith would be supported and taught, that their imaginary friend ought get to dictate what is taught in science and history classes.

Religion is a big club, and like any club it's not really a club unless you exclude people. Though religion, because you have "god" on your side, ya'll don't just exclude people. Exclusion really isn't good enough for religion, you have to subvert their lives, try to control their destinies, and kill them. The great part is because god is on your side you can say it's all your victim's fault for not being a club member. "they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

It's not your fault you excluded them, killed them, destroyed their lives, it's their fault for not being club members.

Funnily, each time in NSG history there was a poll on people's faith, the vast majority would confess to be believers...
Funny, I would remember the exact opposite.

Funny, I would remember the exact opposite.

If you add up the number of believers of different faiths into one single category, in most of the polls it comes out equal to or above the total number of agnostics + atheists.

The hostility isn't towards 'faith', really, the hostility is towards the insistence of people of faith on imposing their moral values on others. Atheists tend to be more libertarian in their approach to generation of law; let people do what they want in their private lives, as long as they're happy, that's the main thing, right?

Whereas people of faith often do not view peoples happiness on this plane of existence as the most important thing; they have this misguided compassionate compunction to save our immortal souls. They want to save us from ourselves. The trouble then is a clash of values - I think it's perfectly rational and leads to the greatest happiness that I be allowed to divorce my wife and buy contraceptives and abort unwanted children; they think that I am a misguided fool because an invisible guy in the sky is watching and will punish me awfully for my sins. It's a plain old clash of values.

The reason why atheists get so annoyed however, is that they are perfectly willing to let religious people live their lives how they see fit; religious people however are NOT willing to let atheists live their lives as they choose, fearing for a general collapse of civilisation if the moral values which they have been brought up to believe (often falsely, as the facts go) that the general public have lived by for the past several thousand years are abandoned for a newer, more modern and humanistic approach.

The opposite of the fanatic religious believer is not the fanatic atheist; they actually have a huge amount in common. The opposite of the fanatic is the agnostic who doesn't know if there's a god or not, and doesn't care either; he just wants everyone to be allowed get on with their lives as they see fit. And the end effect of faith of the masses without empirical evidence still annoys the hell out if him :)

Every social welfare program is a faith based initiative. It shouldn't be possible to be a "left-leaning atheist." Why should the government steal money arbitrarily from some people and give it to others at the point of a gun? Because YOU believe it's moral. That's YOUR morality you're imposing on other people. There is faith there--in the idea that YOUR MORALITY is somehow better than mine, because I don't like to see money forcefully extorted from my neighbors by the government.

I hold little admiration for left-leaning atheists. However, rational atheists, like Ayn Rand and the Objectivists, have an excellent philosophy, and though I'm a deist personally, I hold a great deal of respect for their notion of independence and effort in the face of the incredible human significance a godless world signifies.

Whether or not you believe in God, or an interpersonal spiritual force, or the virgin Mary in your mashed potatoes, at least realize that forcing your own personal moral beliefs on the rest of the country not only offends, enrages, and hurts those that don't subscribe to the same philosophy, it cheapens the values themselves. Mandatory religion is meaningless. Romans didn't really worship Augustus. Communist Soviets weren't all atheists. They were forced to, and it didn't work!

The pilgrims and our founding fathers left England to escape religious persecution, founding America in an effort to escape it. Don't let their efforts be in vain. Remember the Constitution.

Ron Paul '08!

If you add up the number of believers of different faiths into one single category, in most of the polls it comes out equal to or above the total number of agnostics + atheists.
Not in the ones I've seen. Looks like Khadgar made one which lumped them all into Atheist and Theist, and Non-Personal. Let's see how that turns out.

Because people don't like it when people think differently from them. We are comforted when others agree with us, it legitimizes our beliefs and as such legitimizes our egos.

Why the intolerance? Because it has been half a fucking millennium since the renaissance, and they still keep up this BS. It has well and truly breached my BS tolerance levels. No amount of women, politicians, and lawyers can compare to the BS of the faithful.

People should be respectful of other's faiths. We do not need to agree on matters of faith. We can even believe that tenets of other's faith are evil. However, we should not be nasty to one another.

Every social welfare program is a faith based initiative. It shouldn't be possible to be a "left-leaning atheist." Why should the government steal money arbitrarily from some people and give it to others at the point of a gun? Because YOU believe it's moral. That's YOUR morality you're imposing on other people. There is faith there--in the idea that YOUR MORALITY is somehow better than mine, because I don't like to see money forcefully extorted from my neighbors by the government.

I hold little admiration for left-leaning atheists. However, rational atheists, like Ayn Rand and the Objectivists, have an excellent philosophy, and though I'm a deist personally, I hold a great deal of respect for their notion of independence and effort in the face of the incredible human significance a godless world signifies.

Whether or not you believe in God, or an interpersonal spiritual force, or the virgin Mary in your mashed potatoes, at least realize that forcing your own personal moral beliefs on the rest of the country not only offends, enrages, and hurts those that don't subscribe to the same philosophy, it cheapens the values themselves. Mandatory religion is meaningless. Romans didn't really worship Augustus. Communist Soviets weren't all atheists. They were forced to, and it didn't work!

The pilgrims and our founding fathers left England to escape religious persecution, founding America in an effort to escape it. Don't let their efforts be in vain. Remember the Constitution.

Ron Paul '08!

Erm... last time I checked it's people who form the country and shape it the way they want it to be.
Unless you live in some sort of totalitarian moralistic country, like maybe Saudi-Arabia.
It's odd how people tend to forget that they in fact ARE society.

Every social welfare program is a faith based initiative. It shouldn't be possible to be a "left-leaning atheist." Why should the government steal money arbitrarily from some people and give it to others at the point of a gun? Because YOU believe it's moral. That's YOUR morality you're imposing on other people. There is faith there--in the idea that YOUR MORALITY is somehow better than mine, because I don't like to see money forcefully extorted from my neighbors by the government.

I hold little admiration for left-leaning atheists. However, rational atheists, like Ayn Rand and the Objectivists, have an excellent philosophy, and though I'm a deist personally, I hold a great deal of respect for their notion of independence and effort in the face of the incredible human significance a godless world signifies.

Whether or not you believe in God, or an interpersonal spiritual force, or the virgin Mary in your mashed potatoes, at least realize that forcing your own personal moral beliefs on the rest of the country not only offends, enrages, and hurts those that don't subscribe to the same philosophy, it cheapens the values themselves. Mandatory religion is meaningless. Romans didn't really worship Augustus. Communist Soviets weren't all atheists. They were forced to, and it didn't work!

The pilgrims and our founding fathers left England to escape religious persecution, founding America in an effort to escape it. Don't let their efforts be in vain. Remember the Constitution.

Ron Paul '08!

Balls!
I'm an atheist, and I'm perfectly capable of 'believing' that it's better for the State to attempt to provide a form of aid to the luckless and lesser-fortunate without needing some kind of invisible sky fairy to justify my 'belief'.
That 'morality' doesn't necessarily arise from some greater 'faith' or 'belief'. It simply arises from the hope that, should I happen to fall upon truly bad times (eg I move to a new country with a 'guarantee' of work, and that work falls through - as has happened to me) then there would be some form of 'safety net' to stop me being evicted and starving on the fucking street.
Which, in the case of my example above, is exactly what did happen to me about six years ago. Thanks, Australia!

The fundamental role of a government is to provide for its people.

A government is the collective voice of those people. That's what 'government' literally means. When government becomes corrupt and starts serving the interests of niche groups, 'special interest' groups, and making economic goals a higher priority than the welfare of its own citizens, then it has betrayed its reason for existing. When government takes upon itself the arrogance to decide for the people what is best for them, irrespective of the wishes of those people, then it has become truly corrupt.

Pretty much every 'western-style democracy' in existence today is a colossal perversion of the ideals upon which they were created.

Stick Ayn Rand the whole way up your fat asshole. You're advocating a system of "I've got mine so fuck the rest of you", and for that you can go rot.

Even if you aren't a intolerant, bigoted, authoritarian bible-waver, the majority (a huge majority) of Protestants and Catholics in this country and others are. The mere word "religion" represents something so evil and oppressive to me that all I can do is see red when I hear it. When disguised in the political propagandist language that we hear in the public sphere - my favorite: "family values" (literal translation: hate and discriminate against gays, atheists, and pro-choicers) it seems harmless enough. In fact, it seems virtuous. But anyone who has analytical thinking skills knows what religion in politics stands for. Oppression, pain, suffering. Mainstream Christianity celebrates AIDs as a punishment for homosexuals...even for those who aren't homosexual. They oppose condom use and education for fear that it will prevent the spread of AIDs - then how will God punish the homosexuals? Christianity opposes research that would help millions of living persons who live in pain and suffering - because they oppose using cytoblasts (a zygote collection of just a couple hundred cells (the amount you might lose when you scratch your arm)) because...well I don't know why. Because these collections of cells have the POTENTIAL for human life. Everything has potential. I have the potential to become an attorney...does it mean that it's going to happen or should happen? No, perhaps I have another purpose in life, like becoming a doctor so that I may help ease suffering in the world. That's a pretty clear metaphor for you. Christians have lost the ability to think in this way because they are constantly spanked with dogma by their parents, their pastors, and their political leaders! Their values have boiled down to words like family values, evil-doers, and right to life. It means nothing. If they begin to think freely, they are programmed to feel guilty, and all they have to do is remind themselves that "God works in mysterious ways." This phrase is so easy to employ, and it's so evil! It basically ends any argument that might be pursued on any subject. Once a secular person wins on an argument, a Christian can restore their faith and pride by saying "God works in mysterious ways." This is the most oppressive phrase of the 21st century.

And as Sam Harris points out, those who are religious "moderates" are no better than the fundamentalists. The moderates are just people who are not willing to follow their own religion, yet condone and support the radicalism of the fundamentalists. They are the instrument by which fundamentalism exists and is accepted in American politics. When you say that not all Christians are bigoted or misogynists, all this means is that you are not practicing your religion correctly, because western religion is to the core bigoted and misogynistic. Christianity should not be tolerated in any way shape or form.

Perhaps spiritual life exists, but our measly 5 senses have no way of observing it. So what. This makes no case for a Judeo-Christian personified deity. This is the work of dictators and monarchs who must justify their oppression. And now it's being reborn today in this country while the people who speak the truth are granted less credibility than a slave in the cotton-picking south. If it was up to America, Atheists would be completely disenfranchised. But since Atheism isn't something you can judge by the color of our skin, we get by.

This is why I hate on the Christians.

I'm an atheist and I have no problem with religious people. But some people are just mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers.

-snip-

The OP seems to use faith to mean three completely different things at different points in the post:

1. To mean a religious ideology.
2. To mean a believer in a religious ideology.
3. To mean believing in something without evidence.

I'm proud to say that I'm very hostile to number three, usually hostile to number one (although I'll judge each one by its own individual merits) and no more hostile to number two than I am to anyone else.

Speaking as a resident of the UK, it's infuriating to hear people bleating about 'militant atheists' and 'intolerance towards faith'. If the government stopped basing policies on religion, disestablished the Church of England, ended religious privilege and stopped funding homeopathic nonsense then I'd be happy to give religion a break; until it stops interfering n the running of the country (and thereby in my life) then it's fair game.

Asking for a rational debate on religion is like asking the left to cut taxes. It rarely happens.

True. I remember when you tried to 'debate' Grave N Idle on religion: he posted pages of reasoned arguments and evidence and you just kept saying he was wrong... ;)

Hows the engagement going by the way? Are you married yet?

Asking for a rational debate on religion is like asking the left to cut taxes. It rarely happens.

Been taking a debating class recently? You aren't exactly qualified to speak on rationality, as far as I remember.

But they didn't actually examine their reasoning-- had they actually look at the evidence for a heliocentric system instead of condemned the person who argued for it, they would have been able to conclude that they had previously been wrong. It turns out that their beliefs weren't based on reason at all. (this is pretty much what you said, I believe).

That's just it though, before Copernicus came along, all evidence available was consistent with a heliocentric system. There are very detailed charts of heliocentric systems that accurately predict the locations of planets and stars. A change in ideas is often very difficult in science as well as religion, as you pointed out. How many times has the model of the atom been redrawn using all available evidence at the time?

Now, a part of reason is being able to change your mind when new evidence presents itself, and, indeed, accepting that there is some possibility, however, slim, that you are currently incorrect about something. Religious people almost never do this about their religion, therefore it is far more irrational than, say, a scientific belief.

You say that religious people never alter their faith at the introduction of new evidence. This is because in the field of religion, there is no concrete evidence. The existence of a God cannot be proven or disproven. We can only make conjecture based on our interpretation of the circumstantial evidence we have available.

If you ask people to proove the existence or nonexistence of a God, they will cite scriptures and talk a lot about either the process or impossibility of evolution, depending on their viewpoint, and about the origin of the universe. None of this constitutes real evidence, it is all circumstantial. Faith is just your own belief that the conclusions you have come to about the world, in every aspect, based on limited knowledge are correct.

When you assert that you can prove something by reasoning, you are making three assumptions based on faith:

Complete Information
Correct Information
Valid Reasoning

You assume that you have a complete knowledge of the subject area that you are making an assertion in, and that all of that knowledge is correct. You are also making the assumption that you have successfully avoided fallacies in your reasoning. We can easily make assertions about small things like 1+1=2 or that grass is green, because there is a very small amount of knowledge needed for that assertion. The faith involved in such an assertion is so insignificant as to be negligible, but when you move any farther up in complexity, there are so many unknowns and possibilities for mistakes that it is absurd to have absolute faith in your own reasoning.

Not so funny Meow, is it.

Not so funny Meow, is it.

Do I look like a cat to you, boy? Am I jumpin' around all nimbly bimbly from tree to tree?

Do I look like a cat to you, boy? Am I jumpin' around all nimbly bimbly from tree to tree?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drqrypDX34Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drqrypDX34Y

That movie is genius.

Sorry , didnt meant to hijack the thread....
I was just all hopped up on maple syrup!

That movie is genius.

the snozzberries taste like snozzberries!!!!!!!!!


I agree.

Sorry , didnt meant to hijack the thread....
I was just all hopped up on maple syrup!

Threads like this get entirely too serious.

Yeah
it needed some Lighthearted Tomfoolery before a Holy War Started :fluffle:

For a very simple reason. Religion has been openly hostile. Which is frankly all that needs to be said, despite apologetics like we find in the OP.

The fact is, no matter how much you try to clammor that the central tenant of your faith is respect and people who believe as you do really do respect gays and nonbelievers, by and large you don't.

The fact is, no matter how much you try to deny that a great bulk of the practitioners of your faith don't REALLY believe us non believers are going to hell, by and large you do.

The fact is polls like this recognize this very fact and try to squirm out of it with posts like "but it's not all of us, we're not all like that!" Maybe not, but the odds are certainly stacked against you.

The fact is, you recognize the own inherent hostility in your own faith and try to circumvent it, but you never seem to address one question. If the very fundamental central tenants of your religion is that gays should be stoned to death and non believers will burn for all eternity, how could you possibly justify believing in that faith?

The fact is, no matter how much you try to proclaim "oh, that's not christian", it is. It's right there in your most holy book. Right there in a text that your religion proports to be the word of god. A christian, a real true christian would believe that gays should be stoned to death and non believers burn in hell. Because it says so in the bible. And one of the fundamental tenants of christianity is that the bible is divine. And if you don't believe that non believers should burn in hell and gays should be stoned to death, then you don't believe in the bible, and therefore you're not christian.

Almost all religions are openly and directly hostile to outsiders, and all find scriptoral rationale for it. And if you don't believe in the divine scripture of that religion, how can you claim to be part of it?

And if you do truly believe you can be christian and yet at the same time not believe in parts of the bible, then you must believe that those parts of the bible are wrong. And thus people are wrong for believing in them. And if people are wrong for believing in them, let me ask one simple question...what have you done to try and correct what you believe to be a mistaken belief?

The answer, typically, is not a whole lot.

In reply to the general topic:
Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence. If there is scientific evidence there is no need for faith. You can have faith in whatever you want as long as it doesn’t impinge on my life.
If a government or person decides to cut my heart out while I’m still alive, and offer it to the gods to make it rain I have a problem with that.
If a government or leader decides to send me to war because they’ve faith that a supernatural entity told them to then I have a problem with that.
If adult relationships are denied legality because of the faith that a superior being objects to them then I have a problem with that.
If someone drives their vehicle down the road, takes their hands off the steering wheel with the faith that a supernatural creature will take over control, then I have a problem with that.
If a government or person decides to shove red hot pokers down my throat because I don’t have faith in their religion I have a problem with that.
If I’m forced back into a burning building to die because I’m not properly attired according to the government faith then I have a problem with that.
If I’m forced to accept superstitious nonsense as fact in a pledge of allegiance to my country then I have a problem with that.
If we could be allowed to live our lives freely as long as we don’t hurt others it would be great, But the people of faith will never allow that.
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

When you assert that you can prove something by reasoning, you are making three assumptions based on faith:

Complete Information
Correct Information
Valid Reasoning

You assume that you have a complete knowledge of the subject area that you are making an assertion in, and that all of that knowledge is correct. You are also making the assumption that you have successfully avoided fallacies in your reasoning. We can easily make assertions about small things like 1+1=2 or that grass is green, because there is a very small amount of knowledge needed for that assertion. The faith involved in such an assertion is so insignificant as to be negligible, but when you move any farther up in complexity, there are so many unknowns and possibilities for mistakes that it is absurd to have absolute faith in your own reasoning.

I disagree. When a scientist makes an assertion, what it really means is "According to available evidence, x is very probably true." However, if sufficiently convincing evidence is presented, he will say "Oops. I was wrong"

When a religious person says "The Earth is 6,000 years old and was created in 6 days by God Almighty. Evolution is false," he will almost never change his mind about it. No matter how much evidence is presented in favor of an old earth or evolution. If you want evidence for this, look at America today! A full 44% of people in the US believe in YEC, despite all the evidence against it, and no matter how often it is presented to them. Faith overrules science for them, which is silly, because scientific processes are the best way we have to learn things about the universe. Faith is just "here's an idea. Now that I have the idea, I will keep it forever no matter what."

People should be respectful of other's faiths. We do not need to agree on matters of faith. We can even believe that tenets of other's faith are evil. However, we should not be nasty to one another.

Your right and most of us try

The problem is that too many people think a vigorous attack on a prominent religion is an attack on them personally.

I disagree. When a scientist makes an assertion, what it really means is "According to available evidence, x is very probably true." However, if sufficiently convincing evidence is presented, he will say "Oops. I was wrong"

When a religious person says "The Earth is 6,000 years old and was created in 6 days by God Almighty. Evolution is false," he will almost never change his mind about it. No matter how much evidence is presented in favor of an old earth or evolution. If you want evidence for this, look at America today! A full 44% of people in the US believe in YEC, despite all the evidence against it, and no matter how often it is presented to them. Faith overrules science for them, which is silly, because scientific processes are the best way we have to learn things about the universe. Faith is just "here's an idea. Now that I have the idea, I will keep it forever no matter what."

do you have a source for that stat? I haven't seen that one yet.

do you have a source for that stat? I haven't seen that one yet.

Here you go, a bunch of stats (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml):

Though how you can't have seen these before given the myriad of posts on this subject is beyond me.

FAVOR SCHOOLS TEACHING…

Creationism instead of evolution
All Americans
37%

That's not those who want both taught, that's those who just want creationism taught

Freaking ridiculous.

I disagree. When a scientist makes an assertion, what it really means is "According to available evidence, x is very probably true." However, if sufficiently convincing evidence is presented, he will say "Oops. I was wrong"

When a religious person says "The Earth is 6,000 years old and was created in 6 days by God Almighty. Evolution is false," he will almost never change his mind about it. No matter how much evidence is presented in favor of an old earth or evolution. If you want evidence for this, look at America today! A full 44% of people in the US believe in YEC, despite all the evidence against it, and no matter how often it is presented to them. Faith overrules science for them, which is silly, because scientific processes are the best way we have to learn things about the universe. Faith is just "here's an idea. Now that I have the idea, I will keep it forever no matter what."

But the fact that you are willing to change your beliefs based on new information doesn't mean that your previous belief was any less wrong. Faith in any scientifically proven fact that is overturned sometime in the future is just as wrong and unreasonable as faith without any evidence at all.

Please note that I'm not arguing in favor of blind faith. Dogmatic people are weak and lazy thinkers for whom I have little respect. The point of my argument is that attacking faith itself as the problem with religion is not valid, because faith is present everywhere. The problem with many religious people is how they apply their faith, as you have pointed out.

Here you go, a bunch of stats (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml):

Though how you can't have seen these before given the myriad of posts on this subject is beyond me.

FAVOR SCHOOLS TEACHING…

Creationism instead of evolution
All Americans
37%

That's not those who want both taught, that's those who just want creationism taught

Freaking ridiculous.
:eek: that is freaking ridiculous.

thanks for the linky.

:eek: that is freaking ridiculous.

thanks for the linky.

No problems :)

:eek: that is freaking ridiculous.

885 people is way to small for a poll of that magnitude. I'd also like to see how it's changed since 2004; I believe there has been a significant shift in public acceptance of evolution during that time.

Now, I live in Ohio, a red state, and I can't honestly say I've ever known a bona-fide Young Earth Creationist in my entire life, even during my time in Catholic school. Even in the Cincinnati area (which I oh-so-hope to move back to) I never knew a single YEC and that region is one of the most conservative in the state. I did know some ID adherents, and a few people that subscribed to a quasi-Old Earth Creationism, but pretty much everybody I knew had no problem with evolution and certainly didn't adhere to Young Earth Creationism.

885 people is way to small for a poll of that magnitude. I'd also like to see how it's changed since 2004; I believe there has been a significant shift in public acceptance of evolution during that time.

Now, I live in Ohio, a red state, and I can't honestly say I've ever known a bona-fide Young Earth Creationist in my entire life, even during my time in Catholic school. Even in the Cincinnati area (which I oh-so-hope to move back to) I never knew a single YEC and that region is one of the most conservative in the state. I did know some ID adherents, and a few people that subscribed to a quasi-Old Earth Creationism, but pretty much everybody I knew had no problem with evolution and certainly didn't adhere to Young Earth Creationism.

855 people is plenty for a reasonably accurate poll assuming a reasonably random sampling

855 people is plenty for a reasonably accurate poll assuming a reasonably random sampling

Here's a big question: Was it reasonably random? And, of course, there's the fact that random results are no guarantee of an accurate poll. It's entirely possible the random numbers were all from the same area, producing bias even though the actual poll was random.

You know what - at the top of the page it gives the current date and I took that to mean it was today's issue - you're right, it's near 3 years old.

I'll go digging again.

You know what - at the top of the page it gives the current date and I took that to mean it was today's issue - you're right, it's near 3 years old.

I'll go digging again.

I'd be really interested. With all of the progress against creationists, especially in elections, I'd say there's a big shift in public sentiment towards evolution.

I'd be really interested. With all of the progress against creationists, especially in elections, I'd say there's a big shift in public sentiment towards evolution.

Here (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/8/105636.shtml)

Let me see if I can find more detail on that - I know I've seen and used it before on numerous other threads revolving around the same topic.

Here's a big question: Was it reasonably random? And, of course, there's the fact that random results are no guarantee of an accurate poll. It's entirely possible the random numbers were all from the same area, producing bias even though the actual poll was random.

Here's a perfect example of my argument about having unreasonable faith in your reasoning and judgements. The results of the poll contrast with your mind's expectations, based on your limited experience with people in the state of Ohio, so you set out to debunk the poll, which is a good idea, if gone about properly. However, basing your idea that the poll did not select randomly enough on assumptions and possiblities, is very, very bad reasoning.

Also, the statement that issues of greater controversy and "magnitude" require a larger sample is not valid. A larger sample does not always ensure more accurate results. If the poll's sample was random enough, additional random voters, would likely not change the overall ratio by more than a few percentage points.

Here's a perfect example of my argument about having unreasonable faith in your reasoning and judgements. The results of the poll contrast with your mind's expectations, based on your limited experience with people in the state of Ohio, so you set out to debunk the poll, which is a good idea, if gone about properly. However, basing your idea that the poll did not select randomly enough on assumptions and possiblities, is very, very bad reasoning.

Also, the statement that issues of greater controversy and "magnitude" require a larger sample is not valid. A larger sample does not always ensure more accurate results. If the poll's sample was random enough, additional random voters, would likely not change the overall ratio by more than a few percentage points.

I would like to know exactly how the questions were worded........

I would like to know exactly how the questions were worded........

As would I. Much more information about the poll: how it was conducted and how the sample was selected for example, is needed before any judgement can be made. Because you tend to find what you're looking for, operating on the assumption that the poll is either wrong or right will probably handicap any attempt to check on the poll's validity.

As would I. Much more information about the poll: how it was conducted and how the sample was selected for example, is needed before any judgement can be made. Because you tend to find what you're looking for, operating on the assumption that the poll is either wrong or right will probably handicap any attempt to check on the poll's validity.

Hey, you get what you're given ok?

:)

Here's a perfect example of my argument about having unreasonable faith in your reasoning and judgements. The results of the poll contrast with your mind's expectations, based on your limited experience with people in the state of Ohio, so you set out to debunk the poll, which is a good idea, if gone about properly. However, basing your idea that the poll did not select randomly enough on assumptions and possiblities, is very, very bad reasoning.

I'd say I've known at least 900 people in my life, and since I'm aware of many of their opinions on evolution for a number of reasons (such as taking courses with them, discussions, even during PSR when I was younger), I could say my results are a pretty good sample of the people around me and my results are significantly different.

So, if my results are significantly different from others despite having a similar range, it's reasonable to assume that the poll may have had some problems with its results due to the low number of people polled.

It's also true that many things affect my results.

Also, the statement that issues of greater controversy and "magnitude" require a larger sample is not valid. A larger sample does not always ensure more accurate results. If the poll's sample was random enough, additional random voters, would likely not change the overall ratio by more than a few percentage points.

It would reduce the chance of a string of random results skewing the data considerably. 400 Bible Belt respondents in a poll of 855 will have a far more disproportionate effect on its results than 400 of them in a poll of 1,200 people.

Now, I'm not implying they are actually wrong, but that it just seems off to me.

Hey, you get what you're given ok?

:)

Yes, but if what your given isn't enough to make valid judgements then you're better off not making any judgements at all.

Yes, but if what your given isn't enough to make valid judgements then you're better off not making any judgements at all.

I'd much rather give credence to a random polling than the experience of an individual who's met 900 people, who probably come from a connected social circle and therefore have vaguely similar views.

The fact remains that a great many people believe in Creationism, and a great many people connect The American Way with a belief in God, a Christian God at that.

This affects public policy as shown by daily debate over abortion, stem cell research down to Under God to sticking the 10 commandments in a court.

There's a battle to keep God in the public eye and legislate according to that.

This should invite open hostility in return - it's no good reasoning with people who act without reason and push for others to be controlled according to that lack of reason.

And as much as we atheists do is debate, we don't tend to get particularly violent about it, if that's all we do then I can't see why people complain about it.

I'd say I've known at least 900 people in my life, and since I'm aware of many of their opinions on evolution for a number of reasons (such as taking courses with them, discussions, even during PSR when I was younger), I could say my results are a pretty good sample of the people around me and my results are significantly different.

So, if my results are significantly different from others despite having a similar range, it's reasonable to assume that the poll may have had some problems with its results due to the low number of people polled.

It's just as reasonable however, to examine the possibility that your results may be less than random. The assumption that a discrepancy between your results and someone else's indicates an error on their part is not good. If we wanted to look at which was more random and accurrate, we would need to examine both samples with the same criteria, being careful not to enter the investigation with any assumptions at all.


It would reduce the chance of a string of random results skewing the data considerably. 400 Bible Belt respondents in a poll of 855 will have a far more disproportionate effect on its results than 400 of them in a poll of 1,200 people.

Now, I'm not implying they are actually wrong, but that it just seems off to me.

But who's to say that there wouldn't be 600 "Bible Belt" respondents in the larger sample? Any conjecture about possible non-randomness in the poll sample is completely unfounded and doesn't accomplish anything.

It did seem as if you were implying that your opinion was that the poll was inaccurate.

I'd much rather give credence to a random polling than the experience of an individual who's met 900 people, who probably come from a connected social circle and therefore have vaguely similar views.

The fact remains that a great many people believe in Creationism, and a great many people connect The American Way with a belief in God, a Christian God at that.

This affects public policy as shown by daily debate over abortion, stem cell research down to Under God to sticking the 10 commandments in a court.

There's a battle to keep God in the public eye and legislate according to that.

This should invite open hostility in return - it's no good reasoning with people who act without reason and push for others to be controlled according to that lack of reason.

And as much as we atheists do is debate, we don't tend to get particularly violent about it, if that's all we do then I can't see why people complain about it.

No, it should not invite open hostility. Not if you claim to be more rational, reasonable people than blind faith christians. There is no reason for hostility to ever enter debate. Sadly, most humans are unable to set their emotions aside when dealing with such personal beliefs, and so we get hostility, but it is never warranted.

You have to look at the issue of "keeping God in the public eye" from a christian perspective before you can judge their motives and intentions. Christians are taught that anyone who does not accept God will be tormented in hell forever upon their death. They aren't trying to force their religion upon you out of anger over your lifestyle or current beliefs. Christians honestly believe that people who are not brought to God are doomed forever, when they try to convert you, it is most often out of compassion.

No, it should not invite open hostility. Not if you claim to be more rational, reasonable people than blind faith christians. There is no reason for hostility to ever enter debate. Sadly, most humans are unable to set their emotions aside when dealing with such personal beliefs, and so we get hostility, but it is never warranted.

You have to look at the issue of "keeping God in the public eye" from a christian perspective before you can judge their motives and intentions. Christians are taught that anyone who does not accept God will be tormented in hell forever upon their death. They aren't trying to force their religion upon you out of anger over your lifestyle or current beliefs. Christians honestly believe that people who are not brought to God are doomed forever, when they try to convert you, it is most often out of compassion.

I really don't care for their motives, I care about the fact that they cause real harm due to their beliefs - and that's all they are, beliefs, which aren't even based on real thought about the matter - no, it's got to be blind faith.

So yes - I know the comparison with racism causes debate but it's a real comparison - it keeps people down due to a misguided belief. There were plenty of 'good' plantation owners but they still owned slaves, so I don't really care about the 'good' or 'bad' intentions, I care about the effects.

I really don't care for their motives, I care about the fact that they cause real harm due to their beliefs - and that's all they are, beliefs, which aren't even based on real thought about the matter - no, it's got to be blind faith.

So yes - I know the comparison with racism causes debate but it's a real comparison - it keeps people down due to a misguided belief. There were plenty of 'good' plantation owners but they still owned slaves, so I don't really care about the 'good' or 'bad' intentions, I care about the effects.

What real harm is that?

Because a lot of atheists are just as intolerant as the fundamentalists that they oppose.

At least atheists are justified. :)

Here's a big question: Was it reasonably random? And, of course, there's the fact that random results are no guarantee of an accurate poll. It's entirely possible the random numbers were all from the same area, producing bias even though the actual poll was random.

Reasonably random is 5 percent sampling error in a population poll or less for the most part ... they usually hit 2.5 or so to bring the total survey bias in the 5 percent range

You are correct it is no garontee but it is a good start. As far as sampling bias that would show up on any standard test, and by default would negate its "randomness"

A sampling bias is easily tested for and easily resolved

If your problem is with sampling bias then the increased number of samples do not help you ... do you have any reason to suspect sampling bias?

But either way the number in this case is over double the ammount nessisary for a 5 percent bias (actually it is close to 3.35 with a standard CI of 95 percent 4.41 with a 99 CI) so the sample size is a complete non issue here and that was my only point

Here's a perfect example of my argument about having unreasonable faith in your reasoning and judgements. The results of the poll contrast with your mind's expectations, based on your limited experience with people in the state of Ohio, so you set out to debunk the poll, which is a good idea, if gone about properly. However, basing your idea that the poll did not select randomly enough on assumptions and possiblities, is very, very bad reasoning.

Also, the statement that issues of greater controversy and "magnitude" require a larger sample is not valid. A larger sample does not always ensure more accurate results. If the poll's sample was random enough, additional random voters, would likely not change the overall ratio by more than a few percentage points.
Even with a strong bias if they used a non standard regression and knew what they were doing they could still bring it in under 7 percent total error at the worst case

What real harm is that?

Read God vs. The Gavel by Marci Hamilton

From marriage laws to scientific research to a myriad of areas where religion infringes its beliefs onto the law.

Because a lot of atheists are just as intolerant as the fundamentalists that they oppose.

Thanks for that Jew-Police.

So, um. It turns out the specific statistic I quoted was from 1997. Oops. :headbang:

Still, I don't think that the general point is much hurt-- in general, people who blindly accept an idea on faith will not change their minds, no matter the evidence.

And I don't quite accept the idea that it takes faith to accept reasoning, per se. I don't have faith that my reasoning is correct. I recognize that I may be wrong in my reasoning, I may have committed some unnoticed fallacy. Of course, I don't think my reasoning is fallacious, or else I'd not use it. But I don't blindly accept that my reasoning is correct. I just realize that there's a chance I'm mistaken. Indeed, I'm positive that there are things I am mistaken about. I just don't know what they are!

And as much as we atheists do is debate, we don't tend to get particularly violent about it, if that's all we do then I can't see why people complain about it.

Here here!

I'd also say that the organised hierarchy of may religious groups makes them appear controlling to outsiders.

Read God vs. The Gavel by Marci Hamilton

From marriage laws to scientific research to a myriad of areas where religion infringes its beliefs onto the law.

A lot of that has nothing to do with religion. People think they think a certain way on such issues as abortion, stem cell research etc. because of religion, but no religion actually addresses such issues.

Think about it, the issue at hand is not a religious or even a moral one. People all agree that murder, the wanton taking of innocent life, is wrong. This has nothing to do with dogma, it's just something that people agree on. I could go into the actual reasons why they believe this, but it's long and drawn out and doesn't pertain to the topic at hand.

The issue is about the definition of life, not about any sort of religious set of morals. True religious people tend to be on one side of the debate and non-religious tend to be on the other, but the actual issue has nothing to do with religion.

I think you'll find that if you examine the cases carefully, the vast majority of the "myriad of areas where religion infringes its beliefs onto the law" are not actually issues where the morals the laws are based on are not religious in origin.

Because people fear what they don't understand.

They also fear what they do understand.

A power trip = a power trip.
People deal with it however. Obviously, if you're talking about intangibility, and feelings, seemingness, platitudes and nothing else to go on but semantics, of course you're gonna be swatting at fog, with less success.

A lot of the people who post the openly hostile things are kids who are just figuring out their own atheism. We tend to be a bit angry at a world we see as oppressive and irrational at that stage. Most of them will grow up and mellow out, concluding that religion is responsible only for most of the world's problems.

To whoever it was that started this thread,
I understand that you had the best intentions at heart, but surely you must have realised that any internet forum about religion will end up as a hate feast between the religious and the non religious. By the way, did I mention how much I absolutely hate those of faith and how blind they are to the world.:p

A lot of that has nothing to do with religion. People think they think a certain way on such issues as abortion, stem cell research etc. because of religion, but no religion actually addresses such issues.

Think about it, the issue at hand is not a religious or even a moral one. People all agree that murder, the wanton taking of innocent life, is wrong. This has nothing to do with dogma, it's just something that people agree on. I could go into the actual reasons why they believe this, but it's long and drawn out and doesn't pertain to the topic at hand.

The issue is about the definition of life, not about any sort of religious set of morals. True religious people tend to be on one side of the debate and non-religious tend to be on the other, but the actual issue has nothing to do with religion.

I think you'll find that if you examine the cases carefully, the vast majority of the "myriad of areas where religion infringes its beliefs onto the law" are not actually issues where the morals the laws are based on are not religious in origin.


Here (http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2005/monkerud0205.html)

That article struck me as being a rather alarmist piece of work, designed to catch your attention. Many of his examples of religious inroads are from Bush's campaigning. Of course he's going to patronize religious groups on the campaign trail, those are his voter base. While a few of the developments are concerning, most of these changes will quickly go out the window with the next democratic administration.

The fact that the author chose to illustrate his article with a political cartoon doesn't make me think much of his objectivity either.

That article struck me as being a rather alarmist piece of work, designed to catch your attention. Many of his examples of religious inroads are from Bush's campaigning. Of course he's going to patronize religious groups on the campaign trail, those are his voter base. While a few of the developments are concerning, most of these changes will quickly go out the window with the next democratic administration.

The fact that the author chose to illustrate his article with a political cartoon doesn't make me think much of his objectivity either.

Yet the problem is that this voter base is such a force, a force based purely on beliefs, a majority of whom believe in Creationism as the only answer to life.

Look, I'm not hostile to belief on a personal level, if an individual doesn't want to walk under a ladder I might question why but I doubt I would unless it was seriously inconveniencing me.

What I object to is a system of irrationally-based beliefs having a sway in the decisions I might want to make in life.

For example, if I was a girl and wanted an abortion, I might listen to a doctor, I might listen to my friends and parents - who have my interests at heart - but not to a religious group following the made-up rules of whoever they believe in.

I might not agree with the ACLU as a lobby force all the time, but at least there's a rationale for what they're lobbying for as opposed to 'It's in the Bible', especially when what God has or has not said is so up for debate among believers themselves.

I won't even force the point that to believe in a God is irrational, although privately I think it is, I will force the point that we have no idea what that God wants, cares for or says about how we live our lives and no one has a right to use Him as a basis for telling me how to live mine.

I am hostile to this idea and I should be.

There's a difference though, between being opposed to an idea, and being hostile to it. Hostility doesn't accomplish anything except earning you new enemies. Now, while I agree that people imposing their religious beliefs on others in the form of laws is immoral, I don't find faith itself to be the problem, and I think that hostility on either side of the debate will only make things worse.


And so you can better understand my position, I myself have a very rational and reasonably thought out belief in a God. There is a small amount of faith in my belief, but not any more than is required to believe in something like the Big Bang.

There's a difference though, between being opposed to an idea, and being hostile to it. Hostility doesn't accomplish anything except earning you new enemies. Now, while I agree that people imposing their religious beliefs on others in the form of laws is immoral, I don't find faith itself to be the problem, and I think that hostility on either side of the debate will only make things worse.


And so you can better understand my position, I myself have a very rational and reasonably thought out belief in a God. There is a small amount of faith in my belief, but not any more than is required to believe in something like the Big Bang.

Hostility is certainly a wrong word - how about actively opposed, and not really to faith per se, but more to religion in politics but really it's about being judged by people, even pitied, based on nothing aside from made-up rules ascribed to a very contentious being.

I would bet that your faith lies at the very beginning of your belief system and all else stems from there. It may be small but it's fundamental.

Not that I care, it's really up to you and I have as little right to comment on your life as you do on mine.

And that's my point.

I knew someone would get me on a technicality ;)
Technically, Stalin and the Spanish Inquisition did about the same amount of damage, I guess. Can we call it even on that account?

Two wrongs ... let's call it "fairies fucking on the head of a pin" and further ass-rape the treasury of aphorism with:

From big things, little things grow!

EDIT: Oh, and carry on y'all. It's a good question, and the thread grows slowly because knee-jerk just doesn't answer well enough. Take your time, do it right.

And Cabra, hit me with the two-by-four. You know I like it, it makes me see stars.

885 people is way to small for a poll of that magnitude. I'd also like to see how it's changed since 2004; I believe there has been a significant shift in public acceptance of evolution during that time.

Now, I live in Ohio, a red state, and I can't honestly say I've ever known a bona-fide Young Earth Creationist in my entire life, even during my time in Catholic school. Even in the Cincinnati area (which I oh-so-hope to move back to) I never knew a single YEC and that region is one of the most conservative in the state. I did know some ID adherents, and a few people that subscribed to a quasi-Old Earth Creationism, but pretty much everybody I knew had no problem with evolution and certainly didn't adhere to Young Earth Creationism.

That couldn't possibly have to do with the fact that the Catholic church recognises evolution and doesn't teach creationism, could it?

Religion is a fatally flawed concept. Most religions include rewards, i.e. going to heaven, and as soon as rewards are involved in anything, human greed takes over. Also, it's too easy for people to use religion/deity/scripture to justify...well, anything and everything, at their whim.

Thus, I would not trust anyone who has religion/faith unless they somehow demonstrate trustworthiness, or I come to know and trust them then later find out they are religious.

Two wrongs ... let's call it "fairies fucking on the head of a pin" and further ass-rape the treasury of aphorism with:

From big things, little things grow!

EDIT: Oh, and carry on y'all. It's a good question, and the thread grows slowly because knee-jerk just doesn't answer well enough. Take your time, do it right.

And Cabra, hit me with the two-by-four. You know I like it, it makes me see stars.

*goes off searching for a two-by-four*

What kind of "hostility"?

If you make claims about what is true that other people find absurd, you should expect responses in accordance with that... especially on a discussion forum.

If you believe in a religion that's bigoted against non-believers, gays, women, etc. (not all of them are), you should expect hostility in response... and probably deserve it too.

With that rationale, the same could about people that are bigoted against christians jews muslims and the like.

sure, but not many people hold that religions are the only bad thing out there. so that doesn't really get you anywhere




which is hardly a point in religion's favor, since that just means that religion is particularly prone to being thus twisted.



well, they keep trying to teach stupidity as science for one...

and it's stupid because?....maybe you should take a good look in the mirror, because your parents learned that same stupidity, thus creating you, and as the saying goes the apple doesn't fall that far from the tree.:eek:

and it's stupid because?....maybe you should take a good look in the mirror, because your parents learned that same stupidity, thus creating you, and as the saying goes the apple doesn't fall that far from the tree.:eek:

What does his parents have to do with this?

im sorry, but the link that you gave has pretty much got to be regarded as meaningless. The people that conducted the poll only included 2000 people, but go on to clam that "most of America prefers..." Location is also very important, im sure that if one was to conduct a poll, polling families that live in the "bible belt", that yes, people are going to look down upon atheists.



and honestly, i dont think anyone can be truly atheist, people who clam to be haven't thought about it enough...and im not talking about if one supports main stream religion but really, think about it, why do even non religious people pray in times of stress?

or for that matter, why spend so much time discussing something you don't even believe, considering the fact that 98% of you don't believe in the creator at all. ( or so you say.)

or for that matter, why spend so much time discussing something you don't even believe, considering the fact that 98% of you don't believe in the creator at all. ( or so you say.)

Because people use that belief to derive motivation from and justify intrusion into my lifes?

Why would you not discuss such a thing?

Edit: and where are you getting the 98 percent statistic from ... I have yet to see a poll reflect those sorts of numbers

But one is necessary the other is not

Their is a reason that a non logical axiom's are limited to bare necessity rather then convenience

that may be in your case but who are you to decide it's not necessary for everyone.

Faith is irrational, hence my hostility towards it.

well how about that, irrationality to explain rationality. ;)

I don't have a problem with the superstitious, as long as they don't hold and use their superstitions as a model for the world and the people in it.

Not because the consequences of doing it are invariably negative. They aren't always. But because it's unethical to force your own irrational bollox on other people.

And you're right. Superstitious people are far from the only ones doing it. Self-proclaimed commies have killed millions attempting to make the world & it's inhabitants, fit their idea of what the world should be. Capitalists to this fucking day kill millions of people in the name of a 'free' market and an 'invisible hand', never quite grasping that redistributing wealth through the use of force, is no different from redistributing wealth through the force of a state or whatever...

Most people are assholes. The religious assholes only stand out because their justifications are more obviously insane than the justifications of most other assholes.

What's this superstitious crap??? So what, you're going to be disrespectful, if it's the last thing you do???

1) faith in general incites belief in supernatural phenomenons, and so gets in the way of understanding the world we live in.

2) abrahamic faith is objectionnable (to me) for quite a few reasons, like the fact that god is justified in doing some really unjustifiable things (read the bible, it's all in there).

3) hostility towards faith doesn't imply hostility towards the faithfull.

4) those numbers are unrelated to yours

5) totalitarist ideologies are objectionnable too.

If that's the case, is that the same as saying: he hates homosexuality, but not the homosexual?

Jesussaves actually.

yeah, but that's cause he shops at wal-mart. :p

If that's the case, is that the same as saying: he hates homosexuality, but not the homosexual?

If I recall, the only outright condemnation of homosexuality is in the book of Leviticus, which is Old Testimate and not applicable to sane Christians anymore. Even most of the religious crazies dont follow Leviticus, because its kinda impossible. And youre not allowed to eat shark, lion, seal or grasshopper.
Contrary to what puffed up homophobics, crazed right-wing nutjobs and the, shall we say...more vocal sort of athiest say, the Old Testimate doesnt apply anymore. We're about Love and Peace now, or should be. Some people are downright determined to have us stoning Wiccans to death in the public square again.
'Course we'd have to GET a public square first, but I guess a handy cul-de-sac will do just as well.

that may be in your case but who are you to decide it's not necessary for everyone.

An axiom my definition is what is necessary for "everyone" otherwise rational discourse within a framework would be impossible

Anything more then that taken on faith may or may not be necessary for the person but that does not make it an axiom

If I recall, the only outright condemnation of homosexuality is in the book of Leviticus, which is Old Testimate and not applicable to sane Christians anymore. Even most of the religious crazies dont follow Leviticus, because its kinda impossible. And youre not allowed to eat shark, lion, seal or grasshopper.
Contrary to what puffed up homophobics, crazed right-wing nutjobs and the, shall we say...more vocal sort of athiest say, the Old Testimate doesnt apply anymore. We're about Love and Peace now, or should be. Some people are downright determined to have us stoning Wiccans to death in the public square again.
'Course we'd have to GET a public square first, but I guess a handy cul-de-sac will do just as well.

Levidicus is the most harsh but condemnation of homosexuality (at least by standard interpretation) is not contained completely within the OT

If I recall, the only outright condemnation of homosexuality is in the book of Leviticus, which is Old Testimate and not applicable to sane Christians anymore. Even most of the religious crazies dont follow Leviticus, because its kinda impossible. And youre not allowed to eat shark, lion, seal or grasshopper.
Contrary to what puffed up homophobics, crazed right-wing nutjobs and the, shall we say...more vocal sort of athiest say, the Old Testimate doesnt apply anymore. We're about Love and Peace now, or should be. Some people are downright determined to have us stoning Wiccans to death in the public square again.
'Course we'd have to GET a public square first, but I guess a handy cul-de-sac will do just as well.

Possibly. But the new testament has some letters from this homophobic and misogynic oddball, by the name of Paul.. does that ring a bell? He's giving Leviticus a good run for his money in places, I'd say.

What does his parents have to do with this?

they did what they did based on the tenants of their faith.

If that's the case, is that the same as saying: he hates homosexuality, but not the homosexual?

Not particularly one is a sexual choice one is belief in something usually contained within the framework of a religion and the associated dogma

It adds a bit more material to contend with then just someones sexual preference

they did what they did based on the tenants of their faith.
Maybe I got lost but what did they do based on their faith?

Because people use that belief to derive motivation from and justify intrusion into my lifes?

Why would you not discuss such a thing?

Edit: and where are you getting the 98 percent statistic from ... I have yet to see a poll reflect those sorts of numbers

just a ballpark guess,but that is irrelevant. See, I find myself drawn to a lot of these threads, curious about the opinions of the folks involved, and every time that I have, the vast majority are anti. That's o.k. with me, cause I tend to point out the flaws with religion to other believers as well, but not to discredit, only to cut through the red tape, and get to what's fundamentally right with religion in general.

Levidicus is the most harsh but condemnation of homosexuality (at least by standard interpretation) is not contained completely within the OT
A little research has yielded a few quotes that seem to come out as 'homosexuality is bad,' and a lot of very vauge refrences to POSSIBLE homosexual situations.

Possibly. But the new testament has some letters from this homophobic and misogynic oddball, by the name of Paul.. does that ring a bell? He's giving Leviticus a good run for his money in places, I'd say.
'Cor, you gotta have crazy old guys, otherwise it isnt PROPER religion.

just a ballpark guess,but that is irrelevant. See, I find myself drawn to a lot of these threads, curious about the opinions of the folks involved, and every time that I have, the vast majority are anti. That's o.k. with me, cause I tend to point out the flaws with religion to other believers as well, but not to discredit, only to cut through the red tape, and get to what's fundamentally right with religion in general.

I think you will find more that argue an anti authoritarian view or an anti dogmatic view are WITH faith too there are quite a few very very reasonable and great people in thoes threads that get stereotyped by a lot of people as being non believers

People like depublicants or Jacobia to name two that seem to get it all the time
LG and a few others as well

If I recall, the only outright condemnation of homosexuality is in the book of Leviticus, which is Old Testimate and not applicable to sane Christians anymore. Even most of the religious crazies dont follow Leviticus, because its kinda impossible. And youre not allowed to eat shark, lion, seal or grasshopper.
Contrary to what puffed up homophobics, crazed right-wing nutjobs and the, shall we say...more vocal sort of athiest say, the Old Testimate doesnt apply anymore. We're about Love and Peace now, or should be. Some people are downright determined to have us stoning Wiccans to death in the public square again.
'Course we'd have to GET a public square first, but I guess a handy cul-de-sac will do just as well.

I can't argue there. I myself am a muslim, and I often have trouble explaining the whole infidel thing. See during the time of muhamad, there was a time when the jews and christians were trying to wipe muslims out. During that time, they were infidels, and we had to do what we did or be destroyed. Unfortunately muslim extremists don't how to give it a rest.

Cabra- I don't see the point of your assertion. What are you getting at? I never denied that I was a part of society.

Yalta- Your morality consists of the idea that people in hard times should be given handouts from their neighbors, whether their neighbors want to give them anything or not--at the point of a gun. That morality, if made mandatory like the government, is no better than when some crazy Evangelical who happens to hold political office decides that his neighbors should pay for new churches and missions in other countries.

The purpose of government, as expertly outlined in the United States Constitution, is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its people. Not to provide comfort. If you came to Australia and some loving souls who shared your morality cared to help you, that's great! Excellent! However, as soon as you put your fingers in my pocketbook (or deduct funds forcefully from my paycheck), we have a real problem. Because of the way the United States is set up, the government has every right to ensure the protection of its citizens from infringements of Constitutional rights by other citizens (through the Bill of Rights and local law enforcement) and other countries (through a non-interventionist military), however, I don't see why I should have to pay for some old woman's retirement. We (assuming you're under the age of 30) will never see our FICA/Social Security money. Ever again.

What if I'm such a nihilist that I believe prolonging life is not only pointless, but morally offensive? Why should I have to pay for the Medicaire of a fifty year old man on dialysis because he blew out his second liver with alcohol? My morality believes prolonging his awful existence is evil, yet you seem to think that it's not only right, but should be made mandatory--at the point of a gun. Funny idea for someone so interested in prolonging life.

Who's to say your religion/morality is right and mine is wrong? If you truly believe that, you're no better than the intolerant, Fundamentalist Christians you hate so much. True, maybe Australia's socialistic government saved you some grief in a scrape, but just imagine the collective of individuals that you stole that money from. You didn't earn it. You just needed it. And if we all get rewarded based on need, the less we perform, the more we receive. Why the hell should anyone work? Why would anyone roll out of bed in the morning, except to turn to crime and looting?

The truth is, if you run into trouble, the fault is no one's but God's and your own. If you don't believe in God, that just narrows down the blame even more. Not to be accusatory, but the idea that I, as an imaginary Australian citizen, should have to pay for your misfortune--(once again, at the point of a gun)--is not only illogical, it's maddening.

There may be a thousand reasons why your misfortunes aren't your fault, but, as it happens, they're not my fault either. I sure as hell shouldn't have to pay for them.

Possibly. But the new testament has some letters from this homophobic and misogynic oddball, by the name of Paul.. does that ring a bell? He's giving Leviticus a good run for his money in places, I'd say.

Schaeffer? Dave's going to be pissed. :D

I can't argue there. I myself am a muslim, and I often have trouble explaining the whole infidel thing. See during the time of muhamad, there was a time when the jews and christians were trying to wipe muslims out. During that time, they were infidels, and we had to do what we did or be destroyed. Unfortunately muslim extremists don't how to give it a rest.

Yes, its often quite amazing how extremists can stretch things to fit their view. From what I remember, Muslims should theoretically respect Jews and Christians as 'people of the book' or something like that, but I guess a few less Book People is alright when youre confronting the Great Satan. Or Darned Ay-Rabs.

"hostility", more like impatience and exasperation, with priestly conciets, is hardly hostility toward faith.

=^^=
.../\...

"hostility", more like impatience and exasperation, with priestly conciets, is hardly hostility toward faith.

=^^=
.../\...

Yeah on my bad days similar ... it is hard not to get impatient nor exasperated at a faith that is being used against you, though I think I do a pretty good job at fighting it and I have more reasons then most to be exasperated lol

Maybe I got lost but what did they do based on their faith?


1) marriage

2) children

1) marriage

2) children

I know plenty of people who do both without a faith in a god

1) marriage

2) children

http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif

I think somebody needs to give you the flowers-and-bees talk some time soon...
You see, children don't happen because people have faith. They happen because people don't have condoms.

I think you will find more that argue an anti authoritarian view or an anti dogmatic view are WITH faith too there are quite a few very very reasonable and great people in thoes threads that get stereotyped by a lot of people as being non believers

People like depublicants or Jacobia to name two that seem to get it all the time
LG and a few others as well

Well that may be true, but at the same time, there was a thread recently where the question was asked...I want to get this right. He was wondering what peoples beliefs were and how they got there. I didn't see one post that wasn't anti religion, and the ones that I thought, well, maybe. those seemed more like sarcasm.:(

I know plenty of people who do both without a faith in a god

Yes but do you know plenty from generations past who did?

Well that may be true, but at the same time, there was a thread recently where the question was asked...I want to get this right. He was wondering what peoples beliefs were and how they got there. I didn't see one post that wasn't anti religion, and the ones that I thought, well, maybe. those seemed more like sarcasm.:(

You might be confusing non-religious with anti-religious here.
There were plenty that were simply non-religious, such as mine.

http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif

I think somebody needs to give you the flowers-and-bees talk some time soon...
You see, children don't happen because people have faith. They happen because people don't have condoms.

:rolleyes: yeah now but not then.

Yes but do you know plenty from generations past who did?

Well, I've heard the old joke that British women used to lie back and think of king and country... but I can't remember ever hearing anything about fucking for god?
Unless you're talking temple prostitution here now...

Yes but do you know plenty from generations past who did?

Sure there have been plenty thought the generations and of different faiths as well so?

Either way you made a lot of completely assumptions about the posters parents which was what my original question of mine was about

:rolleyes: yeah now but not then.

Especially then. Do you know how hard it was to find condoms in the 17th century?

:rolleyes: yeah now but not then.

Lol people have ALWAYS had a tone of motivations for having children. Sometimes faith sometimes society sometimes personal desire

I have always heard maternal instinct being a much stronger motivator in that sort of thing then any personal faith either way

Especially then. Do you know how hard it was to find condoms in the 17th century?

Oh they were easy to find, nobody wanted to use them though. Since rubber wasnt around just yet they had to make their condoms out of pine bark. They werent very popular.

Yes, its often quite amazing how extremists can stretch things to fit their view. From what I remember, Muslims should theoretically respect Jews and Christians as 'people of the book' or something like that, but I guess a few less Book People is alright when youre confronting the Great Satan. Or Darned Ay-Rabs.

Actually, it's the other way around, I don't know if you guys are familiar with the shriners, but they were the protectors of muhamad's caravan. ( now it's been reduced to a bunch of babbling old white guys in diapers) But if you read the book "muhamad messenger of god", it will show you how muslims were at one point responsible for the some sects of both christianity, and judaism surviving. That didn't turn out so well. Maybe that was a bad idea. :p

And not to pick sides here, but most religions, including Communism, Fascism, Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity ridicule and encourage the persecution of homosexuals. Everyone needs a scapegoat, regardless of your doctrine. Along the same vein, newer religions such as Secular Progressivism and popular American Deism do their share of persecution. Look at affirmative action, a clear case of reverse racism that unashamedly asserts that Blacks somehow require a "leg up" to be equal to the ever-so-elite Whites. Aside from exceptions such as this, modern religions manage to avoid targeting genetic groups, although they still actively denounce behaviors that would be otherwise socially acceptable.

The purpose of abstinence until marriage is, historically, to avoid pregnancies and all the potential hazards that single motherhood brings. Despite living in a more enlightened world, a surprising number of young women (ages 15-19) are ashamed of using condoms during intercourse (~35% on average for all American girls in a national cross-section of this age group) Much of this is propogated by a semi-secular distaste for condoms among the spiritual/demi-religious, deist culture. I won't get in too deep into the sociological details, but this group is huge (60-80% of 15-19 year olds), and consists mainly of disenchanted ex-church goers, kids that went to church on major holidays, and kids whose parents' religion has faded over the course of their lifetimes. Why this distaste with contraception exists is a bit of a mystery, especially considering the positive portrayal of contraceptive and safe sex practices by the media. I blame the social conservatives and abstinence-only sex education.

My point is, culture and religion are constantly in the practice of persecuting something they shouldn't. Our task as dutiful citizens is to be wary of irrational distaste, or any hate that we cannot explain, and to examine carefully any individual, religion, morality, or social norm that proclaims that we should hate Jews, or gays. Abortion, or abortion-protesters. Drugs, or the war on drugs. Terrorism, or the war on terrorism (wait, it's definately okay to hate any of these "wars"). Hurricane Katrina victims, or the war on poverty. People fight over teaching Creationism in the classroom, yet in the same day elementary school kids are awarded Track and Field medals, not on merit, but equally, with no reward for performance. "Everyone's a winner" plays on the loudspeaker as all the kids are adorned with dull medals, left dejected and empty, wondering why they even bothered trying when everyone gets the same crappy piece of lead-painted nickel anyway.

Hate's a tool to polarize us and make us fight amongst ourselves. The more we get distracted with hate, the easier it is for the government to assume new responsibilities and strip our rights, one by one.

And not to pick sides here, but most religions, including Communism, Fascism, Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity snip

Sense when did Communism and Fascism become religions

I may not agree with them but they do not fit the deffinition.

Why are people so intent on stretching the word beyond all usefulness

Sure there have been plenty thought the generations and of different faiths as well so?

Either way you made a lot of completely assumptions about the posters parents which was what my original question of mine was about

my post was generally speaking. forgive my sin and I'll throw in a hail mary.:)

Hey guys it's been a blast, but it's 0430 and I'm actually supposed to be working. I didn't want to be rude and just disappear, so have a good night, I'm signing off. :)

Actually, it's the other way around, I don't know if you guys are familiar with the shriners, but they were the protectors of muhamad's caravan. ( now it's been reduced to a bunch of babbling old white guys in diapers) But if you read the book "muhamad messenger of god", it will show you how muslims were at one point responsible for the some sects of both christianity, and judaism surviving. That didn't turn out so well. Maybe that was a bad idea. :p

I was pointing out that extremist Muslims often say that the Koran demands that ALL non-Muslims be converted or killed, or both. Including Christians and Jews. Especially Jews, it seems.

Why am I personally hostile towards faith, and most of it's practitioners: Follow the linky (http://www.thunderministries.net/Kabbalah/satanic.htm) and find out. Especially note the list of Satanic holidays. Seems I've been missing out on all the fun.:mad:

:eek:The only Faith people should have is that of belief in their political system- in the country of ANTI-SPARKLES, the PEOPLE'S non-elected goverment is GOD and as such controls every aspect of their pitiful lives that bears any importance. In my newly created nation, the people's leader-Dark Lord Of The Sith, Darth Sparky, is recognized as the Chosen Messiah and is worshipped hourly in places of worship across the land because they know that no matter how poor or hungry they may be at any given moment their Ruler is watching over them and has a plan for them all......even if that plan is their sacrifice in the name of the Greater Good of Society.

To all you atheists, shame on your souls. You are only poor beings that have not yet been touched by his noodly appendage. For any of you who wish to repent and convert to flying spaghetti monsterism so you can go to heaven where a beer volcano and a stripper factory awaits you, you are more than welcome to:

http://www.venganza.org

and stop doubting our faith!

To all you atheists, shame on your souls. You are only poor beings that have not yet been touched by his noodly appendage. For any of you who wish to repent and convert to flying spaghetti monsterism so you can go to heaven where a beer volcano and a stripper factory awaits you, you are more than welcome to:

http://www.venganza.org

and stop doubting our faith!oh, we don't doubt your faith. we doubt the issue of your faith.

True. I remember when you tried to 'debate' Grave N Idle on religion: he posted pages of reasoned arguments and evidence and you just kept saying he was wrong... ;)

Because he was but meh.

Hows the engagement going by the way? Are you married yet?

It is going well and not till next august

Because he was

and here we see one of the prime reasons for such hostility towards religion.

and here we see one of the prime reasons for such hostility towards religion.

Or could it be that I believe what I believe? Oh wait! In your universe, that cannot be the case. Everyone has to agree to you or they are morons.

I respect other people's beliefs and a few of my friends are not of the christian faith. Hell, my best man is a Jew and we get along very well. Hell he is even a democrat to boot.

So no. I am not the prime reason. The prime reason is morons who shove it down others throats and say accept it or face the consequences. I do not shove my religion down others throats Neo.

Or could it be that I believe what I believe? Oh wait! In your universe, that cannot be the case. Everyone has to agree to you or they are morons.

That's not what he said.

Seriously, Corny, I think most of his point was that people are hostile because so many of "the faithful" rudely chose to ignore what is said to them, and instead just reply with irrelevancies.

You're doing nothing to disprove this hypothesis at the moment.

and here we see one of the prime reasons for such hostility towards religion.

Yes, that has to be the single most convincing argument I've ever heard for anything. "Well, he was."

That's not what he said.

Seriously, Corny, I think most of his point was that people are hostile because so many of "the faithful" rudely chose to ignore what is said to them, and instead just reply with irrelevancies.

You're doing nothing to disprove this hypothesis at the moment.

isn't it fun when a theory is demonstrated to be self evident? Quite right, the problem is not that we believe differently. The problem is the view of the faithful of "nope, I'm right. I don't care what data you have, I don't care how you defend your position, I don't care what argument you offer...nope, i'm right, you're wrong."

That's not what he said.

No bottle. that is precisely what he is saying.

Seriously, Corny, I think most of his point was that people are hostile because so many of "the faithful" rudely chose to ignore what is said to them, and instead just reply with irrelevancies.

I am a Christian and I believe what I believe. I have not been shown evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I believe is wrong. Therefor...I will believe and teach what I believe to be true.

Yes, that has to be the single most convincing argument I've ever heard for anything. "Well, he was."

to paraphrase bottle it's the "nuh uh, that's not what jesus sez!" defense.

isn't it fun when a theory is demonstrated to be self evident? Quite right, the problem is not that we believe differently. The problem is the view of the faithful of "nope, I'm right. I don't care what data you have, I don't care how you defend your position, I don't care what argument you offer...nope, i'm right, you're wrong."

But ....but you are!:D

No bottle. that is precisely what he is saying.

Funny, you're claiming to be prescient now, too. You're amusing.

No bottle. that is precisely what he is saying.

Not according to him.

Feel free to admit your mistake whenever you are ready.

And, since we all know you will never be ready to admit your mistake, keep in mind that you are living up to exactly what he was talking about. You have decided you are RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT, and you will rudely ignore and misrepresent anything that is said to contradict you.

If you act rude, then quit bitching when other people are hostile toward you.


I am a Christian and I believe what I believe. I have not been shown evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I believe is wrong. Therefor...I will believe and teach what I believe to be true.
Exactly. And THAT is what he was talking about.

What, exactly, is your argument?

I have not been shown evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I believe is wrong.

And that wording is precisely the problem. Rational people don't hold a belief until it is proven wrong. Rational people hold a belief only it has been demonstrated to be most likely correct

You haven't been shown evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that the flying spaghetti monster is wrong either, have you?

Or zeus, or thor, or ramahottep, or anansi the spider god, or really any of it, have you?

to paraphrase bottle it's the "nuh uh, that's not what jesus sez!" defense.

Hehe. Quite right.

Hehe. Quite right.
I'd say it's more the, "nuh uh, that's not what I say Jesus says!" defense.

In my experience, the yahoos who try to use that kind of cop-out BS are not remotely familiar with what actually was or was not said by anybody else. They know what they are saying, though, and they are quite sure that their particular God agrees with them. No surprise, of course, since they specifically constructed their image of God for the purpose of self-validation.

I'd say it's more the, "nuh uh, that's not what I say Jesus says!" defense.

In my experience, the yahoos who try to use that kind of cop-out BS are not remotely familiar with what actually was or was not said by anybody else. They know what they are saying, though, and they are quite sure that their particular God agrees with them. No surprise, of course, since they specifically constructed their image of God for the purpose of self-validation.

Well, he's certainly demonstrated that reading comprehension is not his forte.

If you're a mathematician, everything you know about math boils down to a set of postulates - concepts that are agreed upon in advance before the logic begins. None of these concepts can be proven in the mathematical sense - we just have to have a starting place before we begin to do some math.

Postulates are adhered to by "faith". A good example is the difference between Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry - each begins with a set of postulates that cannot possibly be proven to be correct one way or the other. Or, we might see the difference between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics.

Sure - we use Newtonian physics for most of our current engineering problems - but if we accept the postulates underlying Einsteinian physics, we know that those calculations are incorrect - the only thing that saves us is that the errors are miniscule at our current frame of reference.

I see religion the same way. I can't "prove" God exists. But, literally "for the sake of argument", I postulate that God exists in the form and manner I have chosen - and I adhere to my belief in God by "faith".

"Faith" is not proof. But conceptually, it does not have to be.

For the scientific types, think of religion as a set of postulates that other people begin with before they think about the way they live their lives. You may not agree with the postulates, but they are there. They are not subject to "proof".

If you're a mathematician, everything you know about math boils down to a set of postulates - concepts that are agreed upon in advance before the logic begins. None of these concepts can be proven in the mathematical sense - we just have to have a starting place before we begin to do some math.

Postulates are adhered to by "faith". A good example is the difference between Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry - each begins with a set of postulates that cannot possibly be proven to be correct one way or the other. Or, we might see the difference between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics.

Sure - we use Newtonian physics for most of our current engineering problems - but if we accept the postulates underlying Einsteinian physics, we know that those calculations are incorrect - the only thing that saves us is that the errors are miniscule at our current frame of reference.

I see religion the same way. I can't "prove" God exists. But, literally "for the sake of argument", I postulate that God exists in the form and manner I have chosen - and I adhere to my belief in God by "faith".

"Faith" is not proof. But conceptually, it does not have to be.

For the scientific types, think of religion as a set of postulates that other people begin with before they think about the way they live their lives. You may not agree with the postulates, but they are there. They are not subject to "proof".

That's not really true at all. In fact there's an entire set of mathematics that deals with proving with internal consistency the underlying axioms of mathematics. The derivation for 2 + 2 = 4 is something like 2 pages of abstract algebra.

I am a Christian and I believe what I believe. I have not been shown evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I believe is wrong. Therefor...I will believe and teach what I believe to be true.
Have you been shown evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you believe is true, then?

That's not really true at all. In fact there's an entire set of mathematics that deals with proving with internal consistency the underlying axioms of mathematics. The derivation for 2 + 2 = 4 is something like 2 pages of abstract algebra.

Sorry - it still boils down to postulates.

For instance, we have to agree on definitions - what is an integer? What is zero?

Sorry - it still boils down to postulates.

For instance, we have to agree on definitions - what is an integer? What is zero?
Definitions are a different subject altogether.

If you and I agree to refer to all round blue objects as "borts," there is absolutely no faith involved. We have simply decided to use a particular name for a particular thing or category. It's arbitrary, but it's not faith.

WHY CAN'T THE EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES JUST PLEASE, PLEASE LEARN TO COMPROMISE?!?!?!


Ummmm is it summit to do with COZ THAT'S THE NATURE OF EXTREAMISM?:D

Have you been shown evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you believe is true, then?

And here, we get to the ultimate point, and that is something which has been repeated time and again by those with and without faith in a god - that faith cannot be either proven or disproven. It's just, whether you prefer to believe it or not. I'm Catholic, and my former roommate, who's agnostic/atheist and I have discussed this very matter on several occasions. After much of the same points had been offered by both of us, we simply came to that conclusion - you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God, so the only difference is where the burden of proof lies. In his case, the burden of proof lies with the believers, who have yet to show him anything that can be explained by science that shows him that a god exists. On the other hand, I've had experiences, and heard of them in others, that have shown me, in my own life that God exists. I have yet to see definitive proof that God does not exist. Surely, some events in the Bible have been through the scientific process, and many scientists have offered evidence supporting and debunking several biblical events that many evangelical fundamentalists would have you believe must be believed to be 100% true in order to believe. The fact of the matter is, the Bible was never meant to be believed word-for-word as historical fact. It has been admitted by top theologians and religious leaders that the Bible is NOT a history book. The ultimate message of the Bible is the underlying moral and theological message behind myths, legends, and historical facts contained within. We can agree that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammed all existed. Such powerful organizations as the Abrahamic religions would not have developed without them. What is in dispute is whether these people can and should provide us living today with moral guidance based on claims that one can neither prove nor disprove, and how those who believe should go about promoting their interests.

What I seem to see that angers many atheists here is that they feel that the evangelical fundamentalists have organized themselves around the Republican party in America and conservative parties elsewhere, and have begun to step into the political arena. Many atheists feel that it threatens to turn the West into a group of Christian theocracies. While I doubt that happening, that doesn't mean that they don't have a right to express their political views. Theirs differ from most atheists' in the fact that theirs is based in their religious faith. From what I can see, this tends to astound atheists because many of those who have spoken up mention that they have a "live and let live" political viewpoint; they don't believe, but they won't prevent anyone else from believing. Yet, when they hear many political views spring up from those who believe, they become angered because it contrasts with their own libertarian political viewpoint. I think, then, that the real argument here is libertarianism vs. authoritarianism, or even yet another liberal vs. conservative conflict, with religious conflict as a bit of a "proxy war", so to say, thrown in. And, just as with the political conflict, we have extremists on both sides firing their salvos at each other, while those of us who really have nothing against the people we disagree with, regardless of whether our politics are more liberal or conservative, sit back and watch as both sides give us a bad name. So, to put it more bluntly, WHY CAN'T THE EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES JUST PLEASE, PLEASE LEARN TO COMPROMISE?!?!?!

Ummmm is it summit to do with COZ THAT'S THE NATURE OF EXTREAMISM?:D
I would also offer up the question,

Since when is compromise always the best idea?

The idea that the "middle ground" is always the best solution is so silly.

Ummmm is it summit to do with COZ THAT'S THE NATURE OF EXTREAMISM?:D

Well, that was more of a shout of frustration than a serious question. I'm pretty sure that extremists, whether atheist or theist, will probably take everything I just wrote with a grain of salt. But, I thought I would try. Perhaps, then, what I would like more to say, is that respect for others' viewpoints, more than anything, is essential. Belive what you want to believe, politically or religiously, just be respectful to each other as you go about advancing your belief. You're not going to please everyone.

What I seem to see that angers many atheists here is that they feel that the evangelical fundamentalists have organized themselves around the Republican party in America and conservative parties elsewhere, and have begun to step into the political arena. Many atheists feel that it threatens to turn the West into a group of Christian theocracies. While I doubt that happening, that doesn't mean that they don't have a right to express their political views. Theirs differ from most atheists' in the fact that theirs is based in their religious faith. From what I can see, this tends to astound atheists because many of those who have spoken up mention that they have a "live and let live" political viewpoint; they don't believe, but they won't prevent anyone else from believing. Yet, when they hear many political views spring up from those who believe, they become angered because it contrasts with their own libertarian political viewpoint. I think, then, that the real argument here is libertarianism vs. authoritarianism, or even yet another liberal vs. conservative conflict, with religious conflict as a bit of a "proxy war", so to say, thrown in. And, just as with the political conflict, we have extremists on both sides firing their salvos at each other, while those of us who really have nothing against the people we disagree with, regardless of whether our politics are more liberal or conservative, sit back and watch as both sides give us a bad name. So, to put it more bluntly, WHY CAN'T THE EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES JUST PLEASE, PLEASE LEARN TO COMPROMISE?!?!?!

I think it's been said time and again, but I don't mind repeating it again :

Believe what you want, just don't try to force me to behave according to your beliefs.

See, the main difference between "liberals" and politically active religious folks is that one group is happy to let everyone live as they please, and the other isn't. When "liberals" campaign for equal rights in marriage, it does not in any way affect religious folks who believe homosexuality is a sin. Nobody's forcing them to get a same-sex spouse. They can go on living exaclty as they did before.
When religious folks try and make sex before marriage illegal, or are rallying against abortion, or rock music, or whatever else might be immoral according to their book, they are invading other people's lifes, they are trying to force their idea of morality on them. They are trying to force others to conform with their lifestyle.

See the difference there?

I think it's been said time and again, but I don't mind repeating it again :

Believe what you want, just don't try to force me to behave according to your beliefs.

See, the main difference between "liberals" and politically active religious folks is that one group is happy to let everyone live as they please, and the other isn't. When "liberals" campaign for equal rights in marriage, it does not in any way affect religious folks who believe homosexuality is a sin. Nobody's forcing them to get a same-sex spouse. They can go on living exaclty as they did before.
When religious folks try and make sex before marriage illegal, or are rallying against abortion, or rock music, or whatever else might be immoral according to their book, they are invading other people's lifes, they are trying to force their idea of morality on them. They are trying to force others to conform with their lifestyle.

See the difference there?
It all boils down to the fact that the religious right in America is under the misapprehension that they have Constitutional right to not have their feelings hurt. They appear to think that there is some sort of legal protection against having your sensibilities offended, and they fight like hell for this imagined "right."

I think it's been said time and again, but I don't mind repeating it again :

Believe what you want, just don't try to force me to behave according to your beliefs.

See, the main difference between "liberals" and politically active religious folks is that one group is happy to let everyone live as they please, and the other isn't. When "liberals" campaign for equal rights in marriage, it does not in any way affect religious folks who believe homosexuality is a sin. Nobody's forcing them to get a same-sex spouse. They can go on living exaclty as they did before.
When religious folks try and make sex before marriage illegal, or are rallying against abortion, or rock music, or whatever else might be immoral according to their book, they are invading other people's lifes, they are trying to force their idea of morality on them. They are trying to force others to conform with their lifestyle.

See the difference there?

Of course I do, yet I'm not going to tell them they don't have a right to try to advance what they believe in a respectful manner. As I have also mentioned, both sides are equally guilty of disrespect of the other's viewpoints. And, in all actuality, I know some atheists, such as my roommate, who happen to agree with the religious folks on these issues, for entirely different reasons than those the religious folks provide. To be religious, or to be an atheist, does not inherently make you a rightist or leftist, authoritarian or libertarian. On the issues that evangelicals like to promote, I have a combination of conservative and liberal views. (I have both legal and religious reasons to oppose abortion, but my legal and religious reasoning separate on the gay marriage issue, so I end up sounding like John Edwards on that.) The comments I have made just come from observation of the direction in which the conflict is heading.

It all boils down to the fact that the religious right in America is under the misapprehension that they have Constitutional right to not have their feelings hurt. They appear to think that there is some sort of legal protection against having your sensibilities offended, and they fight like hell for this imagined "right."

Nah, not just the USA, I'm afraid. Though your breed tends to be a lot louder and crasser than those in other countries.

In Ireland, the church had made sure that homosexuality remained illegal right up to 1993. Abortions still are illegal, with legislation in place that allows the gardai to prevent a woman from leaving the country if there's reason to suspect she might be seeking abortion elsewhere.

In Germany (Bavaria, in particular), state schools had been forced to have a curcifix in each and every classroom until 1995.

Just a few examples, really...

Nah, not just the USA, I'm afraid. Though your breed tends to be a lot louder and crasser than those in other countries.

In Ireland, the church had made sure that homosexuality remained illegal right up to 1993. Abortions still are illegal, with legislation in place that allows the gardai to prevent a woman from leaving the country if there's reason to suspect she might be seeking abortion elsewhere.

In Germany (Bavaria, in particular), state schools had been forced to have a curcifix in each and every classroom until 1995.

Just a few examples, really...
Well, I know the US isn't the only place with these problems, it's just that I haven't lived in any other nation so I try to confine my statements to what I actually know from personal experience.

You know, I used to believe in god, when I was little. Then they taught me religion and history, and I stopped believing in a god. I'm technically an Xtian, but mainly because I haven't bothered to find out how to get rid of that mention in my official records... Blah.

Because he was but meh.

In which case the correct thing to do in a 'reasonable debate' would be to point out the errors in his logic, rather than just frantically denying his conclusions, no?

It is going well and not till next august

:)

Asking for a rational debate on religion is like asking the left to cut taxes. It rarely happens.

Might be because faith doesn't stand up to rational examination since you either have faith or you don't. It's an emotional thing, and people's emotions flare up pretty easily as we all know. :D

(yes, some people of faith can be rational)

Most aren't, not when you start a rational conversation about religion, based on the assumption that theirs might not be the One Great Truth. :rolleyes:

Since it says the same for murderers and rapists...

And politicians. And lawyers.

No, not when their beliefs are reinforced by that faith and safeguarded by the safe ideological space homophobic religious teachings create for acts of hatred and violence.

I've always wanted to _actually_ discuss the claims of homophobic behaviour with a true Xtian with some teological knowledge. I mean, the Bible doesn't say "it's bad". It's the people who made up the religion (around Jesus, if you believe he existed) that have added the "oh, and gays are bad" bit in. ;)

It all boils down to the fact that the religious right in America is under the misapprehension that they have Constitutional right to not have their feelings hurt. They appear to think that there is some sort of legal protection against having your sensibilities offended, and they fight like hell for this imagined "right."

In fairness, this is hardly unique to the religious right. A few years ago I had a friend who insisted that it was wrong for a public prayer to be offered at a ceremony like grduation because not everybody in the audience was a believer. I asked her if it really truly offended her to hear someobody else pray, and was it such a chore to sit quietly and let them practice their religion? She said that it did offend her and that the Constitution ought to be interpreted to protect her from it.

Later in the discussion she also pointed out that technically, for fire and rescue services to respond to a burning church was crossing the line of separation of church & state.

The former argument I've heard a number of times from people who so virulently oppose religion that they would like to see all traces of it removed from the public eye. These are the folks who object to television programming of a spiritual nature and feel that if you're going to wear a crucifix you ought to have it tucked under your shirt to avoid offending anyone who might see it and isn't a believer.

And I think some of the reactionary behavior on both sides is due to this kind of oversensitive extremism.

855 people is plenty for a reasonably accurate poll assuming a reasonably random sampling

That's assuming a whole hel of a lot. I know from experience how hard it is to get good sample, then get people to take the damn survey. You get to the end of the sample, and the client isn't willing to pay for more, the client is usually okay with fudging the spread a little bit. (my experience is with market research, not public opinion. your mileage may vary)

In fairness, this is hardly unique to the religious right. A few years ago I had a friend who insisted that it was wrong for a public prayer to be offered at a ceremony like grduation because not everybody in the audience was a believer. I asked her if it really truly offended her to hear someobody else pray, and was it such a chore to sit quietly and let them practice their religion? She said that it did offend her and that the Constitution ought to be interpreted to protect her from it.

Later in the discussion she also pointed out that technically, for fire and rescue services to respond to a burning church was crossing the line of separation of church & state.

The former argument I've heard a number of times from people who so virulently oppose religion that they would like to see all traces of it removed from the public eye. These are the folks who object to television programming of a spiritual nature and feel that if you're going to wear a crucifix you ought to have it tucked under your shirt to avoid offending anyone who might see it and isn't a believer.

And I think some of the reactionary behavior on both sides is due to this kind of oversensitive extremism.

On the first point she's right. On the second she's not. Guess what, being an atheist is not a character reference, some people are dicks. There are just more religious dicks.

On the first point she's right. On the second she's not. Guess what, being an atheist is not a character reference, some people are dicks. There are just more religious dicks.

That's obvioius.

As to the last statement... well of course. if a given cross section of any group is x% dickish, then the larger segment of the population will contain more dicks.

... Although they mostly go by 'Richard' or 'Rick' these days...

I'm less hostile to faith than I am hostile toward people who attempt to impose their faith on those around them.

"Amen" to that! :D :p :cool:

the fact remains that faith in all its forms is unreasonable and irrational.

So would be your faith in this fact, correct?

You can twist it into logical words if you like, but we're talking about organized religion here, not merely faith in something.

So would be your faith in this fact, correct?

You can twist it into logical words if you like, but we're talking about organized religion here, not merely faith in something.

No, you are completely wrong.

He doesn't have faith in that fact, he is supported by logic and reason, that is not faith. Faith is blindly following something in spite of its illogicallity.

He doesn't have faith in that fact, he is supported by logic and reason, that is not faith.

S/he believes in her reason, so by her/his reasoning, that's faith. (That makes everything faith, actually, but I don't think it concerned him/her.)

Faith is blindly following something in spite of its illogicallity.

Not the way s/he defined it previously, where s/he questioned other peoples' "faith" on considering themselves rational beings. By that logic the same goes for her/him.

S/he believes in her reason, so by her/his reasoning, that's faith. (That makes everything faith, actually, but I don't think it concerned him/her.)

Not the way s/he defined it previously, where s/he questioned other peoples' "faith" on considering themselves rational beings. By that logic the same goes for her/him.

Logic is objective not subjective. Thus she doesn't have faith she makes decisions based on empiracle logic.

It all boils down to the fact that the religious right in America is under the misapprehension that they have Constitutional right to not have their feelings hurt. They appear to think that there is some sort of legal protection against having your sensibilities offended, and they fight like hell for this imagined "right."

Sadly it seems that a significant portion of the American population thinks that they have a Constitutional right not to have their feelings hurt. Christians arent the only group that has people like that.

Have you been shown evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you believe is true, then?

I have personal experiences and experiences of others that tells me there is something beyond this life. I take it on faith which is just that. One does not need evidence beyond doubt to believe something.

I have personal experiences and experiences of others that tells me there is something beyond this life. I take it on faith which is just that. One does not need evidence beyond doubt to believe something.

One does not need any evidence at all to believe something, just look at all the nutters out there in Utah or in the Middle Ages.

However do you not think that every nutter who has ever believed anything on faith has thought deep down they were right? That ever man who has ever predicted the apocolypse thought they were right? Or that Hitler and Mussolini thought they were right about white people being superior? Strength of conviction is not related to the accuracy of thought. Nor will it ever be, when a total lack of evidence is present.

It all boils down to the fact that the religious right in America is under the misapprehension that they have Constitutional right to not have their feelings hurt. They appear to think that there is some sort of legal protection against having your sensibilities offended, and they fight like hell for this imagined "right."

The same can be said for many different groups. Not just the religious right. Many groups feel that they have a Constitutional right to not have their feelings hurt.

You know, I used to believe in god, when I was little. Then they taught me religion and history, and I stopped believing in a god. I'm technically an Xtian, but mainly because I haven't bothered to find out how to get rid of that mention in my official records... Blah.

Put down no religion.

A timely bit from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/23/faith.reader.feedback/index.html

One does not need any evidence at all to believe something, just look at all the nutters out there in Utah or in the Middle Ages.

However do you not think that every nutter who has ever believed anything on faith has thought deep down they were right? That ever man who has ever predicted the apocolypse thought they were right? Or that Hitler and Mussolini thought they were right about white people being superior? Strength of conviction is not related to the accuracy of thought. Nor will it ever be, when a total lack of evidence is present.

You do speak some truth. As to those who predict the Apocolypse, I pretty much ignore those idiots because all the signs are not there yet.

As to Hitler...he thought he was right but remember, he was defeated by primarily white armies of the United States, Russia, Free French, Polish, Canadian, British and others.

A timely bit from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/23/faith.reader.feedback/index.html

Bernice Dumitru of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
I am deeply committed to my Roman Catholic faith and in coming to know and love God as He is in His essence not in an image of my own making. I am appalled at how little regard religious people can have of others and do it in the name of God.

All I can say is...AMEN!!!