Of course, that is not remotely similar to what he actually said. Aside from that, your critique is spot on.
I will happily answer your questions, but as overall, I am much closer to your position than the religious posters on the board. Can I ask why you keep challenging my posts? Is it anything personnel and if so can we resolve it?
Your argument is sound and I have no way to refute it. I will leave it up to the religious to defend why being religious is not on the same footing as astrology and the rest.
I give people with faith a slide as they were raised with religion and in most cases surrounded by others raised with religion. Even those raised by parents into astrology are almost always surrounded by far more people who do not believe in astrology. As far as moon landing hoax, I guess I find that so off the scale crazy, that I cannot even look at it seriously.
I do not respect my sister’s belief in God; I just do not try to persuade her she should stop believing. Though I lack belief and faith, I do not see any way that her belief is harming her. If she joined a church that required her to tithe, I would try very hard to persuade her out of it and put this money into her retirement instead.
I find it hard when my kids ask about God. I usually gloss over God (the mythical figure) and talk a little about established religions instead. I tell them that many people believe or feel a need to believe and it is rude to challenge them on it. I have taught them about how many people have done much that is wrong in the name of religion, but many have done good deeds instead. I teach them what I know of science and I encourage them to ask questions. I found the Straight Dope answering questions from my daughter.
Jim {Seriously, if you are challenging me for any personnel reasons, I would like to know and I would like to try and resolve them if you are willing}
Well, tu quoque but still. Sub whatever term you like, or remove the offending sentence altogether. The fact remains that there is no reason for one person’s interpretation of reasonableness to trump another’s unless one of them is kooky. And beginning with the premise that religious people are kooky doesn’t help because then saying that he’s kooky because he’s religious is begging the question. It is simply a misstatement of fact to say that there is no reasonable evidence for the existence of God.
Right: There is no evidence for the existence of God that I find reasonable.
Wrong: There is no reasonable evidence for the existence of God.
This thread has mutated along the way but getting back to the OP (waaaaayyyy back):
Raised RC by severely lapsed RCs. Now I’m a Catholic of convenience and only show up for the big three – bred, wed and dead.
I’ve never seen a systemic bias against religion in general or Christianity in particular. Quite the opposite, in fact. This board appears to have a much greater population of atheists than can be found in RL demographics. This leads to a greater acceptance of what could be considered “non-traditional”, “minority” or “non-conformist” views. By and large, the moderators and posters are willing to discuss their opinions dispassionately and logically, debating points, expressing opinions and generally listening to each other.
There are a few posters (I will not name names but you all know who they are) who seem to revel in slamming people who express even a mild curiosity about the possibility of the existence of some “supernatural being” (God/Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/Thor/Set/FSM). Words like “invisible pink unicorns” and “sky pixies” are flung about. To a believer it is not just dismissive of their beliefs, it is damned insulting. Yet they are rarely, if ever, called on it.
In a thread about the appearance of transgendered genitalia a poster stated that he would retch at the sight. He was immediately raked over the coals for it and everyone was offended that he could express that opinion. But it is OK to insult the beliefs of a Christian. Or a Jew. Or Pagan. Or Wiccan.
But the few a-holes who can’t abide by common decency and rules of proper behavior don’t stop me from enjoying the intellectual discourse I can have with the other members. I won’t get into name-calling pissing contests with people who have joined the Fundamentalist Unified Church of Knowledge that hard-core atheists belong to. They are just as bad as Phelps, Falwell, Swaggart and Hinn. If you refuse to believe the preachers you supposedly burn in hell. If you don’t believe the F.U.C.K.’s you are supposedly an idiot.
Intolerance knows no boundaries.
Oh no there’s nothing personal. I like you, actually. I just had the impression that you did put religion on a different plane than say, astrology and psychic hotlines.
That’s very reasonable. I guess it feels different to me because I realized my atheism very young and grew up surrounded by believers. I was seven when I told my christian, church-going parents that I did not believe, and in fact could not believe. They didn’t take it well, but eventually gave up on me. They no longer go to church. I don’t think that had anything to do with me, though.
It’s probably pretty tough since it’s very likely that their friends/classmates are at least nominally of some religion.
I found it very hard growing up in a country where the question is not ‘Are you religious?’ but ‘What religion are you?’
When I was in the hospital ER after a car accident, I was asked ‘Which church should we notify that you are here?’ and the nurse sort of flinched when I said ‘None. I’m an atheist.’
Many people don’t seem to have any capacity for understanding my problem with the whole societal default of that question, with being assumed to be a believer.
Seriously, I am not at all challenging you for personal reasons. More or less it’s because your position seemed so close to mine, yet with that one key difference and I felt the need to know why I was perceiving that difference.
Scientologists have evidence that suits them. Astrologists have evidence that suits them. Berkowitz had evidence that suited him. Why should your belief and statement that you have evidence that suits you be taken seriously when we laugh at those who are Scientologists and who believe in astrology and put into mental instutions those who believe a dog told them to kill?
I tend to look at it as people creating stories for the purpose of explaining things that they didn’t understand or were afraid of, which perhaps is why I cannot understand the value in clinging to those stories when there is an explanation that is scientifically verifiable. I don’t seem to have that same need to believe that we’re all being taken care of. I’ve never felt fear at the idea that this is all just happenstance and that there’s no one and nothing making sure it’ll all be ok. I tend to view religion today as the need to feel that we’re not on our own. What I don’t understand is the inability to recognize that need and distinguish it from the fact that there is no figure in the sky making sure that we’re taken care of, the need to believe that someone is controlling the things we can’t squared with the fact that although a person might want that reassurance… there’s nobody there.
It’s like human kind is a kid learning to ride a bike. There is no dad with his hand on the seat to hold us up, but most of humanity is still afraid to turn and look behind and realize that there’s no one there.
You labeled those backwards.
Thank you for the reply and I am glad that we can have a slight disagreement. I sympathize tremendously with your plight growing up. I think I was more fortunate than you, I left the RCC at age eight and my parents were OK with it. My sisters and one Aunt were seemingly the only ones that ever bought into it. My Brother dislikes the Church more than I do. Without questioning them, it appears my parents were just going through the motions for family reasons.
When I join the Navy, the woman you handled making up the nametags was at a loss for how to classify me. She had no clue what an agnostic or non-church person was and insisted it made me an atheist. I finally convinced her to use NA for Non-Applicable. So the military was actually more accepting of Atheist than Agnostic, at least in 1985.
As an irony, I just received a hand-addressed letter about someone nearby that wanted to help me understand the bible. I am slightly paranoid that my information was given to this person from either a ‘well-meaning’ member of the dope or the church lady at work. I think she has given up on me, much as I have given up on her ever understanding that Harry Potter is not evil and evolution is far more logical and likely than “and God created…” The timing was strange however.
Jim
Gratuitous. I explained why I labeled them the way I did. How 'bout you explain why your interpretation of evidence trumps mine. If you’re the objective standard, prove it.
Forgive me, Joe, I didn’t see this until now.
Here are answers. They may not satisfy you, but they’re the best I can give at the moment.
-
It never ceases to amaze me the contradictions people are able to hold in their heads at the same time. But yes, the big religions aren’t very acceptable to me. I believe in a loving God, and I identify him as Christ, but I don’t accept some of the dogma as it’s written or preached. Much of it rings a false note with me. (Nor do I believe the literal truth of most of the mythology surrounding Judeo-Christian belief, but that’s a minor point.) So I admit that this puts me in a tenuous position vis a vis organized religion. I am not, you may have surmised, a member of any church, major or minor.
-
Thordom doesn’t have to be acceptable to me; only to it’s adherents. I would give it the same respect I give Christianity. And if others denigrate you, Joe, for your belief, or twist your words, or call you a liar when you give your interpretations of Thorish scripture, then I will chide them. OTOH, if your interpretations lack internal consistency, or if you insist to me (as in your initial post setting the hypothetical) that I must follow Thorish dogma, then I will feel free to examine your beliefs rather starkly --or to ignore you. In no case would I dispute your interpretations of your own religion unless I had an equally well considered interpretation to offer.
Since you think that there should be a different standard for christianity than there is for belief in zeus, xenu, thor, the boogeyman, the tooth fairy, and the demon inside the neighbor’s dog, perhaps you ought to demonstrate why there should be a different standard.
You keep saying there is ‘evidence’ that verifies the factual existence of the thing you believe in.
Let’s see it.
My position is that there is no more evidence of god than there is of zeus, xenu, thor, the boogeyman, the tooth fairy and/or the demon inside the neighbor’s dog. If all this evidence exists, it ought be mighty easy to prove me wrong.
Go ahead.
But I haven’t read where Liberal feels he has evidence that Thor, the Tooth Fairy, et. al. do not exist. Do you have such evidence? I would be interested in hearing about it.
I also haven’t read anything from Liberal claiming that he has evidence that you will accept as proof of God’s existence, only that he has been convinced by it. I have that exact same experience. My experience has given me faith that Jesus Christ does exist. It has not given me evidence to present to you.
Tris
He believes in God. A pretty major attribute of God is that he is the only god. To believe in God means disbelieving in Thor (though the Tooth Fairy is probably still fair game).
Seems rather limiting. I would not impose that restriction on him. YMMV.
On Liberal or God?
Why do you keep asking for this?
Well they both speak for themselves. 
I’m just saying the assumption of single Personage is shaky.
Oh, certainly. But if someone believes in the Christian God, it’s pretty reasonable to suggest they don’t believe in any other gods (and I don’t think Liberal is LDS).
I never said that Liberal believed in the Tooth Fairy, or Thor. But not believing in Thor does not require having proof of the non-existence of Thor. Simply not having a reason to believe in Thor will do. Or, just failing to belive in Thor for no reason at all.
You seem to want Liberal to prove that everyone who has difference of faith is wrong. I don’t think he wants to do that. You seem to want it, so the dreaded burden of proof (or in this case disproof) seems to me to be on your head.
Tris
How would this be different if you said Thor instead? Would I be any more or less justified in saying that it sounds to me like you’re having difficulty providing evidence for the existence of a figment of your imagination? Should I automatically lend more creedence to your statement because you said ‘god’ not ‘Thor’?
My point isn’t that you don’t actually believe in the things you’re saying. It’s that your beliefs deserve no more respect or consideration or validation from me than they would if you were carrying on about Zeus and Mount Olympus being real.
Because I want a reason why the Big Three should be different. I want a reason why my answer of ‘it’s absurd’ is good enough for refuting a scientologist, a thorist, an astrologist, a demon-in-a-dog believer, but not a Big Three follower.
I want to know why this ridiculous bias that permeates society and this forum.
Hey, i’m not the one you should be arguing with, here. I’m not questioning Liberal. I just pointed out that, by saying he believed in God, he pretty much also said “I dont believe in Thor”. That’s the only point I wanted to make. It’s catsix you’re arguing with.
But you keep asking people who don’t think they should be any different.