In america and europe kids are not becoming fundies anymore.
I dont have to imagine what it is like to be a fundy. I was raised in the south in the 1970’s
I voted “Being more dogmatic or close-minded in non-belief/science as any fundy.” It’s not that I mind belief in science—quite the contrary! What irritates me (a lot, on this board) is the false dichotomy of science vs. religion. The presumption seems to be that all theists are Biblical literalists, ergo anti-science idiots. There’s factual truth, which is where you want science and DO NOT want religion, but there’s also metaphysical truth and profound statements about the human condition, where religion is quite useful.
There’s also an anthropological dimension to religion that the science-friendly often fail to understand, instead being all Lutheran and assuming it’s just an individual, his or her faith, and the Bible. Any discussion of religion that fails to take the social dimension into account (from either side) is missing the point. Most Christians don’t choose a church based on an intellectual analysis of the tenets of the faith. They join the church they were raised in, or their spouse was, or something close enough that their friends and neighbours go to. Then they accept what they agree with and ignore the rest, and because it’s religion and not science, they happily don’t worry about the contradictions. No reason they should, because, again, NOT SCIENCE. Not supposed to be.
then sue me
false
wow
two cases that have yet to be accepted by the medical community at large.
I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make. I’m interested in how theists receive common atheist arguments (and vice-versa). If you’re not then this isn’t the thread for you.
What is false? That there is such a thing as metaphysical truth? That there is such a thing as profound statements about the human condition? Or that religion is a useful way to get at these?
Just in case you’re ascribing more to the statement than I intended, please note that I never said it was the only way to get at metaphysical truth, nor that it was necessary. I know many a well-rounded atheist who does just fine without religion, here and in real life. I just think that anyone who denies that religion has any contribution to make to society is being willfully ignorant, or worse, plain ol’ ignorant ignorant.
Edit: I’m not even arguing that religion is a net positive; just that it’s not 100% negative.
:smack: That’s a really intelligent reply (said sarcastically, just in case you didn’t catch that). Did you happen to notice what the title of the thread is? “Most annoying atheist arguments”. I can assure you that I am most definitely an atheist, and I can still quite confidently say you are a perfect example of the first choice.
I didn’t answer any choices because (since I am atheist) none of those arguments annoy me. (Wouldn’t have replied at all except for Robert163’s comments).
they receive it in the same way that a dog who hates a bath, receives soap.
wha!!! wha!!! the big mean atheist is being mean to me. wha!!! wha!!!
i love hearing this
it all ways makes me laugh
1- what is “metaphysical truth”. religion, by definition claims to have the monopoly on truth.
2- my main objection is that religion is like a mental fog and to get at the good portions you have to accept all the bad ones too.
I’ll put it this way; you’re arguing with someone with a view opposed to yours and there are multiple points you could make to win them over. Wouldn’t you prefer to use the arguments that are more effective? So far all you seem to say is theists are “just wrong”, which they could simply fire right back at you; a zero sum game.
Before you say that religion clouds anyone to reasoned arguments from your side, how many atheists used to be religious?
You love hearing what?! One atheist criticizing another atheist for the lack of intelligence (“then sue me”) of their comments?
Ah. Thank you for illustrating my point: you do not understand religion. Both of your assertions are easily falsifiable by talking to religious people. Case in point: one of my students, who is Anglican, does not claim to have the monopoly on truth. My 12th-grade religion teacher, a Catholic nun, rejected the ntion of Hell. The sheer number of philosophers, ancient or modern, who professed a religion should be enough to put paid to the notion that religion “is like a mental fog.”
Mind you, there are some idiots who claim to have the monopoly on truth. There are some idiots for whom religion is like a mental fog, and there are certainly many individuals and even organizations who insist that you have to accept both the good and the bad. But in no case is this a totality of religious individuals or religions.
ever heard of someone converting in the middle of an argument? no, right? if you want to hold their hand and kiss their ass and hope that someday down the road they will change, go ahead, it happens. i’m not going to waste my time doing it.
i’ve never heard this:
well i thought all of those atheist were mean and rude but their was this one atheist who was REALLY nice to me and NEVER contradicted me. Thanks to him, I changed my mind.
what i do hear is:
after several years of heated arguments i finally accepted that my beliefs were unfounded.
Did you actually read that article that I pointed you to? (Voodoo Death, so you don’t need to scroll back)
that is a whole another topic. i believe in the bible but in my own way is almost as stupid as believing the earth is 6000 years old.
i scrolled to the bottom and saw there are only two reported cases and then i logged off of Wikipedia.
You misunderstood my point and I can’t make it any simpler. I wasn’t talking about being nicey-nice and kiss ass, I was talking about effective argument.