Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nelson on August 17, 2011 at 12:45pm

certainly i agree that the atheists that claim that all religious believers are stupid are perhaps as stupid as the religious believers they refer to. there's simply no question that there are a great many very intelligent religious believers.

 

but it's a special brand of naivete a person embraces when they begin the refrain "everyone's entitled to their opinions". because. they're just not. or, if they are, they're NOT entitled to have no one challenge those opinions.

to see that this is true just ask yourself if people are entitled to their opinion that denying medical care to their 2 year old in favor of prayer is the right thing to do; ask yourself if people are entitled to their opinion that forgoing cancer treatments in favor of magic water (homeopathy) is the right thing to do. do you think that a person that beats their child on the basis of what they believe their faith tells them is entitled to their opinion? is a person entitled to their opinion that believes that the best course of action is to fly planes into buildings? how about a person that believes they have psychic powers, and who then goes off to mislead police investigations and give false hope to the parents of a missing child, are they entitled to their opinion? people who deny to schoolchildren an evidence based science education? people who relegate to second class citizenship an entire group of the population simply because of what those people choose to do with their sex organs? people who vote candidates into office not on the strength of their policies but on the basis of their acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? are they entitled to not have their opinion challenged?

 

see. you already agree that people's opinions should be challenged. so why are you ranting against those that do so when you refuse to?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on August 17, 2011 at 1:01pm

Very well put.  I use to also be extremely passive and not challenge theists, even when I was approached.  But as I have continued observing I find more and more distain for people who use religion as an excuse to justify their actions, either god or satan made them do it, never their own merit.  I'm not saying that theists are stupid or do not have the capacity for intellect, they do, and many brilliant minds are or have been theists in our history (many of us were at one point under the same delusion).  The problem is they will drop logic and reason when it comes to their beliefs and that is a dangerous thing.  God trumps logic every time when it comes to decisions.  I am of course speaking in a broad generalization; I’m talking about the ones who...well are stupid. Not stupid as in mentally ill (although that point could be argued for some...) but in blindly following without questioning the motives or logic behind it all.  If it only affects themselves then I have no problem, but when it starts to influence the lives of others or myself then that’s when I am vocal, and unfortunately, their doctrine mandates that they affect the lives of everyone in many situations.  I’m not talking about saying a prayer in public, if they want to praise a toaster, so be it.  But like the examples Nelson gave, then it’s not ok.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shalee Mae Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 1:43pm

Fair enough, I will remove my verbiage "Everyone is entitled to their opinions" from my point, and clarify.

I just meant that non-radical religious thought should not be demeaned from an Atheist pedestal. I believe that religion can strengthen a person, and help them cope with with a life, that we all know to truly be fleeting. Why should that be taken away from someone? Further more why even try since we know there is no method, including reason which most of us pride in being our greatest weapon,  that can possibly take that away from someone who truly believes. 

 

Although I know that there are those in an unfortunate position of power that utilize religion to justify what is nothing more than their solitary opinion, but there are many religious people, intelligent or otherwise that are, that are accepting of different religious belief or non-belief. I just don't think that all of the religious should be judged by a vocal radical minority.

I believe in coexistence, because isn't it diversity that allows us to live so long? I do not wish to only be friends with Atheists, just like I don't wish to only be friends with white heterosexual lower-middle class female college students. 

Is that valid? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on August 17, 2011 at 2:24pm

except that the non-radical religious believers give cover to the radical religious believers. and who is that gets to decide who is radical and who is non radical?

moreover, even the non-radicals make decisions throughout the course of their lives informed, at a fundamental level, by the nonsense ideas they hold.

they only way that we've moved into modernity is by gradually leaving nonsense ideas behind in favor of secular modes of thought. now, after the success of that process to this point, you want to say "well, the non-radicals..."

the only reason why there ARE non-radicals is because people in every age have challenged nonsense beliefs. to stop now is to deny this history.

 

i would love coexistence. but coexistence is only possible when each leaves the other to believe as they wish (or not believe as the case may be). but this has never happened and there's no reason to believe it ever will. the religious always want to inject their beliefs into the laws and policies of society.

 

who says you only have to be friends with atheists? why would you equate being friends with someone with an inability to discuss a person's beliefs and their justification for those beliefs?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shalee Mae Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 2:59pm

As far as radical and non-radical religion goes I could go case by case and give you a ruling based on my opinion, but it is gonna be different than yours. Lets just say that there is a difference between people who physically attack people, and people who simply attend church

 

There are plenty of non-radical religious people that speak out against the radical members of their community. The issue of Gay Marriage is just one example of where people with faith are split. Religion shouldn't be marginalized as non-sense. This is the point I am trying to prove. There are plenty of intelligent accepting religious people that outweigh the horrible discriminating ones.

 

I think it is pretty cynical to believe that coexistence is impossible. Personally I coexist fine with people of other religions and have never had a problem with people trying to convert me, because besides a flyer on the street now and then, nobody has tried. And my non-faith is strong enough to withstand a couple of flyers.

 

I never said that anyone is forcing me to be friends with atheists only, it was more of a point that diversity of beliefs is preferable, as opposed to trying to rid the world of all "toxic" religion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on August 17, 2011 at 3:17pm

that's just what i'm saying. who gets to be the final arbiter of what is non-radical and what is then? not you surely, and not me either. and not HIM or HER. then who? where does non-radical religion end and radical religion begin?

 

you're not trying to prove anything. you're making naked assertions. why shouldn't religion be marginalized as nonsense? it IS nonsense. why shouldn't we insist that people be able to justify what they believe is true? why shouldn't religion be made to compete in the marketplace of ideas the same way other ideas do?

 

i think it's pretty naive to think that it is possible when history tells us that it isn't. unless you mean coexistence in the sense of there being a minority of non-radical religious people in a majority secular society. if that's the case then, sure, that can be coexistence. but that won't happen until nonsense is marginalized. and that's something you oppose.

 

diversity of opinions is preferable when the facts are up in the air. in that circumstance the diversity of opinion helps us determine the truth. but when opinions are fossilized as unflinching unchanging beliefs in opposition to the nature of objective reality and when these beliefs are the basis of someone's life and life decisions that effect other people and society at large, that's dangerous.

 

either a citizenry that believes in nonsense is bad for society or isn't bad for society. i'm perfectly happy to grant that non-radical believers in nonsense aren't as bad for society as their radical believer counterparts. but the converse of this is the admission that a citizenry that doesn't believe in nonsense is ideal, and a citizenry (made up of some proportion) that believes in nonsense (albeit perhaps non-radically) isn't ideal, though certainly more ideal than one made up of a higher proportion of nonsense believers, or perhaps a proportion of radical believers in nonsense.

if one is true, then so is the other. there's no getting away from this. and so you must acknowledge that your position is one in which you would advocate not for a pressing on toward the most ideal condition for society, but being satisfied with a condition that is admittedly less ideal.

therefore, what you must prove, if you're trying to prove anything, is why we would want a less ideal condition for society than the most ideal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shalee Mae Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 4:16pm

You are absolutely right. I am not trying to prove anything. That was not my original point.

I was only posting to see if there were other Atheists that share my frustrations with our community. Either there aren't or they haven't seen/ responded to this.

 

I believe in accepting others for who they are, and what they believe in. Acceptance to me means not belittling them just because I disagree.

 

Religious people have faith, which by its very nature doesn't require proof. I can't deal with that, but just because I am an Atheist doesn't mean I am right. I could be wrong about the universe, I don't think so, but I can't deny the possibility.

 

What you seem to be describing in your last post is a utopia, good luck with that, but don't hold your breath.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on August 17, 2011 at 5:04pm

I get frustrated by quite a few things about other atheists. But most of it has nothing to do with being an atheist but other belief systems they choose to stack onto that.

 

You seem to have an issue not with atheists as a community but the idea of proselytizing our position of non belief.

 

I cant say i agree with your concern over  that. The exchange of ideas is what helps humans to communicate and understand each others differences. It doesnt happen magically by saying everyone hold hands and be nice to each other.

 

The way that tolerance happens is from open frank and sometimes heated comparison of ideas and positions. You dont get to a point of coexistence without knowing a bit of what your existing with.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on August 17, 2011 at 6:52pm

You are absolutely right. I am not trying to prove anything. That was not my original point.

it may not have been your original point but, when you say something like, "This is the point I am trying to prove" your reader is certainly going to assume that you do mean to prove something, whether or not proving anything was your original aim.

 

I was only posting to see if there were other Atheists that share my frustrations with our community. Either there aren't or they haven't seen/ responded to this.

but an opinion isn't more true the more people share that opinion. your interest shouldn't be whether more people feel as you do, but whether you have any reason to feel as you do (or, if there are others, if those others do either). that others may speak up to say they feel as you do only means more people who need to justify their belief that we shouldn't care to insist that people be able to justify what they think is true, that it isn't a better society that consists of citizens that don't believe in nonsense.

 

I believe in accepting others for who they are, and what they believe in. Acceptance to me means not belittling them just because I disagree.

woops! then you're back to your original statement, "everyone's entitled to their own opinion", and no longer caring for the distinction between radicals and non-radicals. i'll ask you again then, in slightly different wording, though with the same meaning, do you accept a person for who they are and what they believe in if they deny medical care to their 2 year old in favor of prayer; or who forgoes cancer treatments in favor of magic water (homeopathy)? do you accept a person for who they are and what they believe in when they beat their child on the basis of what they believe their faith tells them? how about a person that believes that the best course of action is to fly planes into buildings, surely you accept them for who they are and what they believe, no? and a person that believes they have psychic powers, and who then goes off to mislead police investigations and give false hope to the parents of a missing child, they have your acceptance for who they are and what they believe, don't they? people who deny to schoolchildren an evidence based science education? people who relegate to second class citizenship an entire group of the population simply because of what those people choose to do with their sex organs? people who vote candidates into office not on the strength of their policies but on the basis of their acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? these people are or are not accepted by you for who they are and what they believe? and surely you'll say that "oh, well, not THOSE nonsense believers, they don't have my respect. i meant the nonsense believers that don't believe in nonsense quite so strongly!" to which i ask again (and this time hope for a response), who decides which is which?

anyway, i don't belittle a person because of what they believe. don't misrepresent me. indeed, i've said repeatedly that you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. but the point is still to catch the flies! i'm upfront about the fact that what a person believes is nonsense, yes, absolutely, but this isn't the same as belittling them. a person that thinks otherwise has missed the distinction between attacking ideas and attacking persons. i can't help it that you and others make that error. and that some people do make that error doesn't mean that we shouldn't still challenge people's beliefs and insist that they be able to justify them as in accordance with objective reality.

 

Religious people have faith, which by its very nature doesn't require proof. I can't deal with that, but just because I am an Atheist doesn't mean I am right. I could be wrong about the universe, I don't think so, but I can't deny the possibility.

it does require evidence justifying what they believe is true. they argue that it doesn't require evidence. you know it does require evidence, that's why you don't believe in it. that they can't doesn't win them a pass, it means they should stop believing in it. it means it's nonsense.

what difference does it make that there's the possibility that you're wrong- which, i certainly admit exists. what matters is whether it's probable that you're wrong. and surely it's infinitesimally probable that you're wrong. so let's not talk about possibilities. they don't matter here. the fact is still that believing in (what is very very probably [there, if you like]) nonsense is dangerous to society.

 

What you seem to be describing in your last post is a utopia, good luck with that, but don't hold your breath.

i said that the theoretical society that doesn't believe in nonsense is ideal, not that it's a real possibility. i certainly grant that, owing to our evolved cognitive biases and heuristics, we'll never have a society that is utterly without believers in some brand of nonsense. but that we'll never have a society utterly without doesn't mean that we should be satisfied with the outrageous proportion of people who do in our society today.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shalee Mae Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 8:57pm

Ok Nelson, honestly, I did not start this discussion topic to get into this pathetic internet tiff with you. My last post was an attempt to return to what I originally wanted this post to accomplish, sorry if I am not the perfect policy debate opponent for you.

 

I am looking for a community. For people that are Atheists to share ideas with me, and make friends. I want to support as well as be supported. That is why I was wondering if there was anyone who agreed with me. When I made the claim that I want to accept others, I was implying my previous justifications as far as radicalism goes. That really doesn't matter anymore though, I am not worried about what you get or don't get from my arguments, because you absolutely refuse to meet me halfway, or any measure of the way, I suppose except for your last paragraph. You were nice enough to confirm one sentence of mine.

 

Perhaps you are trolling around these forums to show off how intelligent you are. Congratulations, You are an expert of reason. You have managed to talk yourself to death, and you have made some really great arguments. I'm sorry though, you haven't changed my opinion on non-radical religious people. I am still going to accept them, befriend them, and even more respect their beliefs as something that helps them, and as something they whole-heartedly believe in with faith. Free pass and all. All you have done is specifically show me the kind of arrogance that I was originally attempting to avoid/understand the reason behind.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 17, 2011 at 9:17pm

Perhaps you are trolling around these forums to show off how intelligent you are.

 

Despite the fact that Nelson can certainly defend himself, I am writing this because he shouldn't have to respond to this sort of debasement.  His reputation here is good enough that it should speak for itself.

 

Nelson has made more contributions to this site than most users, by far.  All you had to do was click his profile and check his plethora of blog posts and discussion contributions to see that most of what he's put up on the site is positive.  In truth, his contributions extend much further than that.

 

Granted, making a lot of contributions doesn't excuse poor behaviour; however -- while you may not like his tone, or may not enjoy the dialog --, I fail to see what he has done that is so egregious as to be accused of trolling.  For the most part, he has stated his position reasonably and tenably.  It's not a 'pathetic internet tiff'; it's people speaking their minds.  There are a number of other respondents to the thread, yet you choose to focus your energy on this exchange.  Why?  If you're not into it, why not walk away in a dignified manner?  

 

That really doesn't matter anymore though, I am not worried about what you get or don't get from my arguments, because you absolutely refuse to meet me halfway...

 

Why should anyone do that ever?  This is about opinions and ideas, not where to eat for dinner.  Meeting someone halfway just for the sake of amicability is disingenuous.

 

People here talk the way they talk.  Instead of judging them for it, why not spend less time focusing on others and more time focusing on what you want to contribute.

Permalink Reply by Shalee Mae Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 9:51pm

ok.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page