It’s interesting how you keep referring back to how few they are, as if that made them any less annoying.
No more interesting than you constantly finding such a small and relatively powerless segment of the populace to be so annoying in the first place.
My new theory is that atheists can actually cross the annoying threshold faster than religious people can, irrespective of their individual degree of zealousness.
This thread is my cite.
I’m sure there are Jehovah’s Witnesses who don’t understand why people might find a knock on their door at 6am on a Saturday annoying.
You’re nuts. At eight o’clock in the morning on a saturday, a prostelyting religous person can become extremely annoying in just the time it takes them to press a doorbell.
Maybe we find it hard to believe that the OP claims that religious zealots annoy him just as much as atheist zealots, but he decides to start a pit threat about the atheist zealots, even though they are far outnumbered by the others. When you are vastly outnumbered, you sometimes find it necessary to shout a bit to make yourself heard-what some may call zealotry,others may call necessity.
Actually, I just think that the OP must be a religious zealot. People don’t find themselves and those like themselves annoying, after all, so if there are 99 religious zealots and 1 atheist zealot and he’s annoyed by the atheist, it’s pretty clear which group he’s sympathetic to.
And I’d say the western theists are wrong when they do so. We won’t rid religion of myth and superstitious tradition easily or soon, but we also won’t do it from intellectual pleading alone. IMO we must look beneath the surface of to try and find some common ground. We can acknowledge that there are still unsolved mysteries left and people exploring love, justice, man’s relationship to man, and the question of some transcendent “other” through the vehicle of their choice is a basic human right.
I don’t intend this to be any special pleading for religious beliefs. As you probably know, I am fully in favor of beliefs being examined in the light of available evidence. I also think we must also acknowledge and explore how a belief system moves the human psyche.
I don’t agree and that is precisely why those arguments seem irrelevant to me. For some maybe religious tradition is it’s own powerful entity but for many people who believe it is linked to their desire for love, purpose, their connection to others,
their feelings about justice and human rights. You cannot separate it and make it a purely intellectual discussion. So, when you compare their belief in God to belief in the tooth fairy you’re not just saying “that’s a foolish and childish belief” on that one level. It’s because I know atheists do care about those same issues that I believe those particular arguments should be abandoned as ineffective and off target.
I think it’s a positive thing to show people that they can care deeply about those things without religious tradition and myth. It’s a worthy goal to try and separate the two and understand that are and can be separate. Still, many people will probably choose to pursue those things within the framework of a religious tradition. Nothing wrong with that IMO until they start worshiping the lamp instead of seeking the light.
Maybe he didn’t pit religious zealots because he knows nobody on this board would stand for it. I mean, who on the SDMB would have the nerve to sacrifice that sacred cow? It simply can’t be done, I tells ya.
So Der Trihs and badchad aren’t assholes, but are merely trying to be heard? Thank you for making that distinction.
I think in todays society that’s a pretty fair comparison. Funny too! 
Man has also stolen murdered his brother and stolen his food to survive. From the first single-celled bacteria to emerge to that omelette I just ate twenty minutes ago, man has looked out for numero uno. Should we then make the leap of logic that therefore there must be something out there?
It’s silly to state in anything in absolutist terms, but not for the reasons you listed.
Science is merely reason, formalized. You use reason every day, from mundane things like whether or not you should put bacon in your omelette to how fast a ball will fall if you drop it. The only difference between plain old reason and science is that science has a couple extra caveats like repeatability. Faith relies on belief in the absence of or in contradiction to evidence, the very opposite of reason. Science describes our world, the Bible describes our world, but science and reason have a proven track record of being pretty accurate. Unchanging faith does not.
The second example will put you in jail. Other crimes merit the death penalty. If somehow you can construe that as anything but force, then we’re speaking two different languages.
It gives cover to man’s shit actions. In all societies, if I blow up a car of strangers, I will be shunned by society. In some, I merely have to mention that they were non-believers, and suddenly I’m a hero. The set of beliefs that religions justify are arbitrary at worst (don’t eat pork!), or simply repeating secular ethics (don’t kill people) in a spiritual manner.
My point is, although there is lots of good in religion, we don’t need religion for that good. On the other hand, some bad can only be justified by religion (the faith-based kind).
The Catholic Church of the middle ages set back humanity several centuries through its suppression of science and education while extorting money from the poor to build gold lined cathedrals. Not all bad ideas die.
To tell the truth, you sound like a member of the somethingism religion. You believe in “something” because the alternative is too painful to contemplate.
Offhandedly, no. Especially not when there was no evidence for the thing in question even being possible. Believing in God isn’t the equivalent of believing in aircraft before they were invented; birds fly, objects are blown; about there are no physical laws that deny the ability of machines to fly. Believing in God is more like believing that you can fly if you just concentrate hard enough.
Of course. But then, not only is there no proof of God, there’s no evidence, not to mention no evidence that such a thing is even possible. That’s not at all the same as “no proof”.
Did I say anything about the military in general ? No. You keep trying to pretend this is about some hatred I have for the military; it’s not. This is about what the military has done and is doing, right now.
Certainly, the people who voted for Bush were either evil or fools. As for them being deserving of death, that’s a complicated question. Were the people who voted in Hitler deserving of death ? And yes, I know Bush isn’t as bad as Hitler; I’m just using that as an extreme example. Surely at some point the people who vote for someone obviously evil share at least some of the blame for what they had to know that evil man would do with the power they handed him.
I’d say that from an abstract moral perspective, they probably do deserve death; they are at least partially to blame for mass murder and torture, among other things. But from a more practical perspective, shooting people for voting for evil people is likely to be a cure worse than the disease.
Typical. The defenders of religion refuse to admit that religion is to blame for any of the evils committed in it’s name, even to the point of demonizing humanity and themselves rather than admitting that religion is to blame for anything. Religion is a thing of hate, including - especially - self hate.
To many, probably most, of the believers, the simple existence of atheists is annoying. Many hate the very idea that someone can be perfectly happy without believing in a god. Many even deny that any atheists actually exist, and claim that we all really know that there’s a God.
Say that after some religious zealot decides to burn your church or shoot you or blow up the building you are in.
Actually, the sad thing is, you just might. I’ve heard the “It’s better to kill for Kali than to be an atheist” argument before.
It must have been from one of the disembodied voices in your batshit head, because I have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.
I stopped reading it when I realized the author was complaining about (and using as anecdotal evidence of his premise) encountering atheistic icons on what I immediately recognized as James Randi’s foundation’s message board. He’s not exactly going to find a decent cross-sample of the general population on sites devoted to skepticism.
To point out the obvious, it’s the argument that any religious belief at all is better than atheism. That it’s better to be someone who kills in the name of religion than someone who believes in no god at all.
The IPU argument is used to discuss the existence of gods, not the emotional or ethical impact of god belief on people. Yes gods stir up more feelings in people than the IPU, but rejecting the IPU argument for this reason is applying it where it is not meant to be applied.
A better analogy would be characters from fiction. Hamlet, Macbeth, Ahab, Dorothy all stir up emotions, and can be used to illuminate all kinds of things. How is god different from these types of characters? People gather to discuss God, but they also gather to discuss Sherlock Holmes and Captain Kirk. The only difference is that those who believe in the reality of these characters are either really young or to be pitied. The Baker Street Irregulars have a good time pretending that Holmes existed, and we can think of them as clever. We’d have a very different opinion of them if they really believed it.
I see your point. Not much doubt in my mind that religious zealots far outnumber and are more offensive than atheist zealots {I’m not even sure what that is}
Still I think the arguments presented and points made are good ones. Examining beliefs is a good idea. Anyone who tries to push their beliefs onto someone else better be ready to defend themselves with something better than “God said it and I believe it” still, if we really seek progress rather than confrontation for the sake of confrontation I think the author makes some good suggestions about being aware of our similarities.
After all, isn’t the summation similar to the SDMB credo?
No, I get the literal meaning. But googling that phrase (and shorter versions) produces nothing of any relevance to the topic at hand. Yahoo neither. Isn’t that interesting? Just one more scrap of outside evidence that you’re gently peeling loose from the reality that the rest of us enjoy. The neat thing is that you’re immune to evidence like that, and this is purely theoretical here, but I believe that the same cognitive blocks that operate to keep a fanatic from knowing he’s a fanatic operate to keep you from knowing just how crazy you fucking are, all evidence notwithstanding.
Clinical question: Do you have trouble meeting women that savor the flava of total bugfuck? Does it make you less lonely in crazyworld to imagine a bunch of ideologically opposite enemies that are…what did you say? Going to burn your house down?
You know what stands out about this post and your previous one? Your opponent is providing reasoning, and you are flinging poo. He may be wrong, but you are just looking like a dick.
Here’s the difference. When we are moved by anything, great literature, an incredible sunset, an exceptional act of love and compassion, we don’t ask, was that Hamlet?
The different guises of god represent a certain something about the human psyche, our ongoing search for meaning and our desire to solve those unsolved mysteries about us in a way those other characters do not. IMO it’s an essential part of our make up and expresses itself in various ways. For many, that expression results in religious or spiritual pursuits.
I didn’t say the IPU or similar arguments were invalid. I just think they are pretty useless because they don’t address the items attached to god belief.
Yes there is no physical hard evidence for God, the tooth fairy , the flying spaghetti monster, the teacup, the unicorn, or bigfoot. So what?
When we look at the issues of how these beliefs impact society, and then the important issues of why and where do we go from here, they’re hardly close are they?