And what if they misuse or invent scientific terminology to support their beliefs? Are we just supposed to go along because it’s just their opinion as to what those terms mean?
As I said, it’s not about who has the better belief. It’s about allowing people to choose their own path , especially in those areas where we don’t have certainty.
It’s really not nessecary for us to know if there is an afterlife or not. We can cross that bridge , or not , when we come to it. I’m talking about basic god belief or the belief that there is or may be something more than this life. We don’t know and aren’t likley to know soon. {at least we hope:)} So if someone believes and doesn’t push it, leave em be. That’s all.
What has nothing to do with it and what’s not a matter of who has the better belief?
You claimed someone was trying to convince believers we couldn’t live without a body or brain just by saying “I believe it is so.” Bullshit. Rationalists make claims based on evidence and we refuse to belief incredible beliefs based on a lack of it. Claiming we try to convince anyone of anything just by saying “I believe it is so” was a lame attempt at equating our rational beliefs with your irrational ones.
Why are you telling me this? Where have I said anything about believers having to justify their beliefs to me?
absolutely not. Purposely spreading falsehoods to support religious tradition deserves to be challanged. It’s almost an obligation.
I’m referring more to polite society and just letting someone have their belief if they aren’t being pushy. If they choose to have a conversation then being frank is dandy. The post I responded to said
I completely agree and I believe that can cut both ways.
You jumped into a conversation I was having with someone else. I didn’t make any claims about you or anything else. I merely commented on a post. I’m not having a conversation about claims I never made.
That’s how message boards work; people generally jump in to conversations and join in. :rolleyes: Claims don’t have to be about me to comment. I never said you made a claim that you didn’t.
I’m not saying believers shoould be allowed to ignore science. I’m saying in areas where we don’t and can’t currently know with certainty we can have different beliefs and no harm done.
A believer holds a basic god belief and the idea that our souls or something lives on after physical death. If they can accept that " I believe that it is so" doesn’t cut it and don’t try to push their personal beliefs on anyone then those who hold a different belief should be able to recognize that their alternative “I believe it is so” or “I believe thier belief isn’t so” also doesn’t cut it.
You didn’t? read your post again. Pay close attention to the part right after YOU CLAIMED. It’s fine if you want to jump in but you misinterpreted my post and then responded as if your misunderstanding was correct. Turns out it wasn’t. No big deal.
I don’t have to read my post again. If you want to point out where I made an untrue claim about you, go ahead.
But rationalists and most atheists generally don’t do that. We say that you are making the incredible claim and the burden of proof is on you. We are without belief in incredible claims with insufficient evidence. That does cut it. Making incredible claims about an afterlife doesn’t.
I already did. I didn’t claim anything yet you said I did. That’s makes you incorrect.
You said:
*That’s true. And if you insist the real world begins and ends with what we see around us and we cease to exist when our physical bodies die, that’s fine as a belief. When you try to convince a believer it’s true for them too you’re going to have problems because as you said “I believe it is so” won’t convince them. *
I said:
You claimed someone was trying to convince believers we couldn’t live without a body or brain just by saying "I believe it is so.
How am I incorrect?
I don’t disagree. I said in my first post that believers can’t be, and shoudln’t claim to be sure of their beliefs. For that reason they shouldn’t even bother trying to prove anything to anyone. They have no hard evidence and that’s a fact.
What they have is a right to hold thier own belief system and should be accountable for thier actions good bad or in between. If I’m not asking anyone to buy into my belief system then I also don’t have to defend it. I just have to be responsible for it in how it’s refelcted in my actions.
Speaking specifically of basic god belief or the belief in souls or something like it, if I choose to believe in that I recognize I have no hard evidence and that “I believe it is so” doesn’t cut it, so I won’t try to convince anyone.
I also recognize that atheists, those who don’t hold spiritual beliefs , don’t believe in souls or an afterlife don’t really know either. That’s thier version of “I believe it is so”
You can successfully argue that rationalists have some evidence and believers don’t. Great, so what? Bonus points for you. If thier reasons for believeing are more emotional while yours are more practical but still unconvincing and inconclusive, then it still boils down to both sides having their “I believe it is so” which both sides are allowed to have.
I see the misunderstanding. I wasn’t directing it at or accusing anyone in particular and should have probably written “If you try to convince etc” rather than" When"
My bad for inaccurate language.
btw, It’s true that believers are far more guilty of being pushy about their beliefs than non believers by a couple of light years.
I just happen to hang out on the SDMB where there is a much higher ratio of pushy non believers than any place else in the world. 
I think that is a misperception on your part, because in the outside world you don’t find people as willing to push back at religion.
No, it’s not. No one can know anything. You’re attempting to make our rational beliefs and lack of belief based on lack of evidence seem equal to your irrational belief by saying we “don’t really know either.”
So it’s the point of this thread.
You’re at it again. Everything is inconclusive. Which of our beliefs or non-beliefs are unconvincing? Of course both sides are allowed to have beliefs. You keep making it sound like someone in this thread is saying believers don’t or shouldn’t have a right to believe.
It doesn’t matter if it wasn’t directed at someone in particular. You were inferring that we (or some) try to convince others of rational beliefs or rational reasons for not believing by saying “I believe it is so.”
No I wasn’t. I was merely pointing out that non believers had their own version of “I believe it is so” and that there are real limits to what your evidence indicates.
Believers should not be so sure and should recognize they don’t really know. Same goes for non believers.
I guess you were wrong after all. Shoulda taken the out when ya had it.
No, you said that we try to convince just by saying “I believe it is so.” That’s bullshit. You weren’t merely doing anything. You have been consistently trying to put rational beliefs and rational non-beliefs on the same level with irrational ones.
I wasn’t wrong and I don’t take outs.
Are you going to tell me which of our beliefs or non-beliefs are unconvincing?