We’ll introduce them to sodomy later. 
Small steps.
Like it or not, religion is destructive to society. It makes people less moral, less well inclined towards others. Simple observation should tell you that. Just because religious people claim over and over that religion makes people moral doesn’t make it any truer than the rest of their nonsense.
I don’t actively go around looking to argue anyone of their faith, but if they want to start the argument, I’m happy to engage them, and don’t feel bad about it if my arguments cause them to doubt.
If God does exist and someone can show that to me using only reason and real evidence, I hope that they would. More generally, if I believed anything that wasn’t true, and someone could show that to me using only reason and real evidence, I hope that they would. I want to believe what’s true, regardless of what the truth is.
Besides just being an end in itself, truth also helps in achieving other goals. If I’m trying to devise a better vacuum cleaner, believing that the dust is sucked up by gnomes won’t help. If I’m trying to do good and help people supernatural claims made by religion are relevant.
Yes, but an individual is not society. What if you couldn’t know whether the person you logic bomb is a sweet little grandma or Pat Robertson?
Like some happy, small-town farmer who was just trying to live their life and never hurt anyone? No.
Some religious fanatic or holy roller who was causing a lot of trouble, or getting people killed or something? I wouldn’t be opposed. But of course, the same pragmatic streak in me that would be fine flicking their god-switch also notes that I might just end up with a crazy fanatic who now wasn’t religious. :smack:
This is your brain: ()
This is your brain on godaway: (****)
So to answer your question, no, of course, I would never take godaway, atheist or not.
Keeping in mind my above-mentioned questions and remarks:
On average, I see no reason to suspect that talking someone out of a personal (especially) or impersonal god by pure reasonable argument is going to do more harm than good, and I personally would like to have a convincing, civilized and above all reasonable argument with someone who could tell me when I’m wrong. And I agree the existence of some kind of god could be very important - again, depending on the type of god.
So I’ll vote yes on both.
Godaway. Apply directly to the spirit
Godaway. Apply directly to the spirit
Godaway. Apply directly to the spirit
Godaway. Apply directly to the spirit
Sure. If nothing else we’d get rid of a parasitic class of clergy, and have some spare resources to contribute to schools or something that actually makes a difference in this world.
We do have an omnipresent, omniscient god called Google. Voting yes is blasphemy against Google-god.
It makes little difference since the granny is directly or indirectly helping support people like Robertson.
I’m supposed to take it on faith that granny’s beliefs supports Robertsonians? It’s quite possible that her beliefs support nobody but granny. I’m certainly in no position to know. Until I do, I’d prefer not taking a bet with a chance that I might rape her brain with my logical hocus pocus.
She supports him if in no other way than by supporting the same kind of faith based belief system he does, and by doing so promoting the idea that that is a valid form of reasoning.
Taking it away implies it was there in the first place.I don’t think anyone that is not a child is a 100% true believer. They’re just fooling themselves, and deep down they know it.
If they are using their religious belief to justify or support proselytism, evangelism, or any other form of jerkitude, then I would cheerfully crush it. It seems cruel, but then consider you’re also taking away things like the threat of eternal damnation and guilt over masturbation, so I think it would be very salutary.
There is one exception… the people who apparently are just one Hail Mary away from being a sociopath; i.e. one of those people who goes around saying “If God doesn’t exist, then what’s to stop me from cheating, stealing, and doing whatever I feel like?” I would not take religion from these people unless I could also pre-emptively sentence them to prison so they couldn’t harm anyone.
Since you could not possibly articulate that in any remotely quantifiable terms, I suppose I should indeed take it on faith that farmer Ned’s basement baptisms are as destructive as Osama’s jihad.
While I don’t object to faith based reasoning in any absolute terms, I think one should have more compelling reasons to justify wailing on the brains of sweet little old ladies with their logical jiu jitsu.
The difference between my Chinese neighbor and Jesus. Is that I know that my neighbor is real, seriously I shook his hand the other day when I wished him a Merry Christmas. Your going to have to come up with a better comparison than reality vs. Jesus.
Same here.
No, unless convincing them that God didn’t exist was an incidental result of fulfilling my professional obligations (i.e., giving college freshmen the intellectual tools to examine an argument critically and spot logical fallacies). Otherwise, it’s none of my business what other people believe.