ITT I pit people who try to debate theology ignorantly

From a thread about accepting Jesus as one’s saviour, we have a person who, it seems to me, takes any and every opportunity to point out his belief, which I have inferred might be summarized by such phrases as “All theists are delusional and ignorant.”

Here is what I responded to and what I said:

For the sake of Fighting Ignorance, I consider it my duty to point out when people like you display ignorance such as I see here.

And just as an aside, IMHO, neither belief in God nor belief that Jesus was the messiah necessarily entails religiosity.

People like you make me realize why I don’t think I’ll ever be an atheist. :rolleyes:

Just because I’m not one, though, doesn’t mean I don’t respect them. Most of them, I have no problem with, and do respect. Most of them, like me, probably realize that they could be wrong. Most of them don’t consider those with opposed viewpoints ignorant and delusional.

I’m not certain God exists. I’ll probably never be able to prove to a non-believer that God exists. But I won’t call you delusional or ignorant for something I can’t substantiate.

You know that religiosity is not the same thing as theistic belief, don’t you?

Jesus, for one, despised religiosity.

You’re mistaken in your assertion that most atheists “realize that they could be wrong,” btw.

OTOH, I suspect that both of the posters in that exchange were using the word in the same way (if not exactly as the word should be used). From my observations, it seems that Wake up call holds that all religious faith or belief is an error, even if he cannot grab the right word when attempting to make his point.

If Wake up call indeed believes that any and all religious belief is “pathological” then I agree that he probably deserves to be pitted. And I say that as a firm agnostic.

I dunno that he needs to be pitted. I just figured we ought not to get distracted by the fact that the pitter and the pittee are both a little hazy in their use of words. :wink:

You’re pitting someone for expressing an opinion? :confused:

Really? Maybe I’ve been talking to all the wrong people. Most people I’ve talked to, when asked directly, admit they aren’t 100% certain they’re right (both believers and non-believers).

Yes, that’s correct. Thank you, and sorry for the shortcoming.

He often seems to be implying it’s a true fact. That’s part of the reason I pitted him.

A lot of people imply that the Resurrection is a true fact. A lot of people imply that it’s a fact that morality is dictated by God. I disagree with them, but I don’t pit them.

If I heard someone doing that, I would try to point out to them what I perceive to be their error. If they did it with the arrogance/intolerance I perceived in several of Wake up call’s posts, I would pit them.

The crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is a true fact. Only an ignoramus would deny that it happened. The resurrection, on the other hand, is debatable.

I guess your threshold for pitting is a lot lower than mine.

It is when I’m feeling particularly irritable. I mean, I pitted American Idol…what does that say about my state of mind? :smack:

Actually, it’s debatable whether Jesus was a real person at all, and there’s very little extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion. I don’t see any reason to believe it didn’t happen, or that Jesus wasn’t a real person, but I would hardly say “only an ignoramus would deny that it happened”. We’ve had some very intelligent and studied dopers who have said just that. So your own statement is somewhat arrogant. But I still wouldn’t pit you for it.

Frankly I think the problem is that wake’s belief system seems inherently disrespectful to you. He really does firmly believe that religion is delusional and pathological. A lot of atheists (not all) do. It’s a defensible position, if not the most tolerant one.

The only ignorance I see here is not knowing what religiosity means. (And I admit I also thought it just meant a strong tendency to be religious).

I don’t see why an atheist has to go around sayiing, “yeah but God could exist, I’ll concede.” Look at it this way. If you lived in a world where like 90% of the people around you believed that Santa Claus exists what kind of a position does that put you in? Every now and then when you hear yet another discussion on the aerodynamics of his sleigh, you just want to pipe up “yeah, but you know, Santa doesn’t really exist. You people are just kidding yourselves.” And then you get called arrogant, because HOW could you POSSIBLY know?

Sure, in the purely abstract theoretical world you’d have to of course, say you can never know for sure. But in the “real” everyday world I live in and function in there is no practical possibility that either God or Santa Claus exist.

Nah, American Idol deserves it. :wink:

Ah, I knew it was coming eventually. I’m glad someone didn’t disappoint me. :smiley:

Surely there are intelligent, learned people in this world that say there’s no way that God doesn’t exist. Either you’re right and they’re wrong, or they’re right and you’re wrong. Which is it? :wink:

I defy you to find a historical expert that believes Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist. I’ve been told by people who know much more about history than I that the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is considered part of history, just like the Holy Roman Empire and the Crusades.

Bullshit - there is no evidence Jesus existed let alone was crucified. Despite being the Pit please provide an independent, reputable cite for Jesus being crucified. Note this rules out the Bible (inconsistent, not eye-witness, full of geographical and procedural errors that destroys it’s historicity), Josephus and other discredited sources for an historical Jesus.

It seems to me that it is the content of the opinion, and not the mere fact that an opnion is held, that the OP is pitting. One might not pit an opinion that Picasso was a talentless hack or even that Jesus was a huckster. But it seems perfectly appropriate to pit an opinion that people who like Picasso are morons or that people who believe in Jesus are delusional. The latter is a direct insult (if one understandably considers “moron” and “delusional” to be insults) toward members of the SDMB community. An opinion that atheists are somehow morally immature or intellectually challenged likewise would deserve a pitting.

How about Tacitus?

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

There also is no evidence that George Washington, Constantine, and Leonardo da Vinci existed. :rolleyes:

As I said to blowero, I defy you to find a historical expert that believes Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist.

By the way, many historians (including some that aren’t of a biblical faith) accept the bible as a history book - or at least some parts of it. Many of the events that it describes are verified by other sources, such as the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.