I would have posted that T.J. (the dying atheist) was likely humouring the article’s author, as religious people get humored quite a bit, but I didn’t feel like registering to do so.
He doesn’t think he has the power to save you from Hell unless you are willing to be saved, and part of helping you to reach that point is not being obnoxious. What point is there for Bob, in trying to save your soul, acting in a way that makes you dislike and distrust him?
Maybe. I would probably take “I will pray for you” as a statement on the same level as “best wishes” or “good luck”. In other words, as a statement of sympathy; and I can’t really find anything to disagree with on that level. Now if that person is actually expecting to get any results from the prayer, I don’t know what I would tell them.
Or the writer is just lying about what TJ said; religious people do that a lot too. They love to put words in the mouths of dead or dying atheists, usually pretending they “saw the light” at the last moment.
Whether the speaker is a hard-core believer that the moon landing was a hoax or a hard-core believer that the moon landing was real, there seems to be an absence of humility accompanied by huge amounts of self-congratulatory smugness.
Whether the speaker is a hard-core believer that homeopathy is an effective medical treatment or a hard-core believer that it’s nonsense, there seems to be an absence of humility accompanied by huge amounts of self-congratulatory smugness.
Whether the speaker is a hard-core believer the earth is secretly run by lizard people or a hard-core believer that such a conspiracy is wildly implausible, there seems to be an absence of humility accompanied by huge amounts of self-congratulatory smugness.
Tell me how any of these differ from what you said in the OP.
People are often sincere and outspoken in their illogical, unsupported beliefs. People are often sincere and outspoken in their logical, supported beliefs. Because of this, you feel that it’s okay to declare that the illogical, unsupported beliefs are equal to the logical, supported beliefs?
(/thread)
I was trying to make the point that fundamentalist and obnoxious aren’t the same thing. But I think you made that point far better than I could
ETA: in post #20- this is not a backhanded compliment.
Some religious people do that a lot. Religious people are not monolithic. Christians are not monotlithic. Biblical literalists are not monolithic. Pentecostals are not monolithic. And so forth. Some are willing to lie to make a point; some are not. Some are so self-deceived as to reality that they speak literal & verifiable mistruths without thinking they are dying; others are more perceptive.
The same is true of atheists.
That’s probably because I’m so incredibly pretty.
No; logically, atheists on average are going to be less dishonest and delusional because they aren’t required to deny reality to hold their position. They might of course be dishonest or delusional about other things than religion, therefore “on average”; but believers are required to be one or both of those, or they couldn’t be believers. The denial of reality is the core of all religion.
The best part was when he told Elaine that she should be the one to steal their neighbor’s newspaper since she was going to hell anyway. That’s right.
Logic is valueless without data to manipulate. I could just as easily say that, while both Christians and atheists are in theory equally likely to be dishonest, Christians in practice are less likely because Christianity’s tenets include prohibitions against dishonesty which cause some Christians to restrain their basic inclination, while atheism, lacking any moral tenets of any sort, offers no such restraint.
Now don’t misinterpret me; I’m not saying the above is true. I’m saying that an argument could be made to support it. But without data, who gives a fuck?
The point is not all atheists are good, upstanding persons; nor are all Christians. Not all Christians are obnoxious asses; nor are all atheists. It is in my view best to ignore what a person believes or says he believes, and concentrate on what he actually does.
I certainly agree that religious people are not monolithic. However, as far as I can see - and I’m not going to ask you to prove me wrong - the only decent reason to believe in the supernatural is personal experience. And 1) I don’t think most believers have had any kind of personal revelation, and 2) most personal experience - that is; memory - of events (especially extraordinary, unexpected events) is utterly untrustworthy.
That leaves us with a gazillion of people who just believe shit because it sounds right. Not that there’s anything very wrong with that, in general. It’s just that the existence of a god judging over the eternal lives of everybody on earth is a fucking big deal if it is true. Much more of a big deal than evolution, or quantum mechanics, or whatever. I don’t want to burn in hell forever if I can help it. How many people do I have to blow/kill/pay off to not end up there? See the point?
Pics or I don’t believe you
But there is data; the fact that religious belief is both illogical and denies reality, which tells me that believers by nature don’t care about or aren’t capable of adhering to the facts, or even rationality.
I see your point. But my point is that humans are capable of a surprising degree of compartmentalization. Hitler was an evil fuck who needed to be beaten to death with a two-by-four, but he was probably much nicer to dogs than I will ever be. My friend Mary checks her horoscope every morning, but she is a very competent drug & alcohol therapist. My former pastor is an inspiration when it comes to helping people work for social change, but she is opposes violence to such a degree that I cannot respect her pacifism.
I’d post some nude photos but I don’t like to boast about the size and number of my penises.
That isn’t data; it’s a deduction. Note that I’m not claiming to have offered data either, by the way; I’ve offered anecdotes.
Nope! I’m just pointing out that just because someone believes differently than I do does not give me license to be obnoxious to them. Of course my own beliefs are logical and reasonable, else I would not have them. Others feel their own beliefs are logical and reasonable, else they would not have them. If I have no humility, it’s easy for me to assume that their different beliefs mean that the other person is stupid or in denial of the facts and thus worthy of harassment by yours truly. With humility, I can recognize that trying to disabuse someone of a notion just because it contradicts my own notions is arrogant beyond belief, and I can refrain from doing so.
If you somehow feel it’s wrong for others not to share your own beliefs, justifying any words or deeds you choose to try to convince them otherwise, no matter how condescending or inconsiderate, I believe you and I will have to disagree.
So if a 9/11 truther or moon hoaxer or any of that stuff were to tell you their beliefs, your response would be a polite “well I disagree but I respect your right to have an opinion that you feel is logical and reasonabe”?
That may be so, but I don’t think you’d be an asshole for saying “wtf!? idiot”
You want religion to have a special status that other nonsense beliefs don’t get.
I know. It’s just that I don’t respect common religions any more than astrology - or extreme pacifism (and I used to be a pretty strong pacifist myself). There are good, fairly obvious reasons to disregard all three, and when taken to extremes they can certainly cause considerable harm. The only reason to oppose religion more strongly is that it demands to be taken so much more seriously.
You wouldn’t be an asshole for thinking they’re an idiot, but you’d be for calling them an idiot, because calling people idiots is sort of an assholish thing to say.
Well, carrying it over into context, “fundamentalist” atheists very rarely just randomly go out and start trying to preach “THERE IS NO GOD!”
Usually it’s in response to action by the religious - either prosetylzing, or making a judgement on someone’s non-belief, or pushing for religious laws, or what have you.
So the analogy here would be if someone were loudly on the street corner declaring that the moon landing was a hoax and that anyone who didn’t believe that was a stupid sheep, then someone else coming up and saying “hey idiot, look at this evidence!” and then the first person saying “well, you’re outspoken and sure of your beliefs just like I am, therefore you’re no better than me!”
That’s essentially what this OP is. But the anti-moon-hoaxers have a not-insignificant advantage… the moon landing actually happened.
Just how rational is it to assume that it’s your job to educate the masses. Especially if you do it one person at a time, in a fashion that conveys your distain for that person and things they hold dear? If it’s an irrational belief, won’t this person irrationally defend his position without regard to the “facts” you quote to him? (Yes, the person you will be talking to will hear the quotation marks even if you didn’t mean them to be there). What really is the point of confronting them except to ensure they know you disagree and think them stupid and/or irrational? How does this make the world a better place for either of you. To me it just looks like you’re “counting coup”. That’s not the hill I’d choose to die on.
My own probable reaction? [Voice of Experience] If they refuse to allow the conversation to be about something other than their irrational (to me) beliefs, then my response would be to as gracefully as possible, make a fast getaway, or at least as fast as I can manage with defective knees and a cane. I take meds to control anxiety and depression and do not need to hang with crazy people, at least ones that make me feel like my meds aren’t doing their job. [/VoE]
I don’t believe I’m particularly irrational because of my beliefs. I’m pretty careful what I label a fact. If I don’t recognize I could be wrong, or at least have an incomplete understanding or knowledge of the facts, I’m more likely to believe others are idiots whether they are the idiot in this case or I am.