Completely understood.
But I’m confused about:
Can you expand on this please…
To be more clear what are the “infinite possibilities” that necessitate the non-existence of a god?
People are wrong about stuff all the time. Being upset about every wrong thing in the world is an infinite task. Most believers aren’t snake-oil salesmen, they’re just folks who let their emotions overrule their critical thinking skills.
I think I set a better example by being an atheist that doesn’t feel the need to patronise and belittle other people.
Believers have a point when they compare “atheists” to themselves. Not the ridiculous “atheism is a religion” stuff, but the fact that (some) atheists are just as obnoxiously dogmatic as any believer.
It has nothing to do with being right or wrong, it has to do with being a prick or not. Being in the right does not entitle you to be sanctimonious about it. A lot of atheists have superiority complexes: that’s very offputting to anyone who might be a potential convert to reason: “If that’s what atheists are like, I’m sticking with the fairytales.”
Are you really asking someone to provide you with a list which must by its very nature be infinite? What was meant was that if you were to speculate on the possible origins and life and the universe and your criteria for qualifying evidence was that there need be no more of it than that provided by known religions (ie: none), then you can come up with an endless set of equally plausible scenarios. An omnipotent He created everything in less than a week and if we’re really good boys and girls one day we’ll get to go to his endless birthday party in the sky, an elderly goat knitted us from the fur of a great cosmic polar bear, we exist in the imagination of a deranged iguanodon with a limp, a thousand sparkly sky fairies cried a million sparkly tears and each tear split into a billion stars and planets etc etc
I’m not saying these infinite possibilities necessitate the non-existence of a god, because necessity provides information which can be used as evidence. I’m saying that evidence is the only way you can distinguish your claim from every piece of unfalsifiable bullshit ever imagined.
Imagine a field of infinite monkeys hammering away on an infinite field of typewriters. Yes, they’ll create the works of Shakespeare, but they’ll also create infinite amounts of gibberish and Twilight novels. Without some sort of filter, all this output is useless, because you’re just as likely to find “aslkjiglgja agojg;gj” as you are “Alas! poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio.”
The burden of evidence is that filter.
edited by ziod
To reiterate what I said before:
I cannot prove there is a god.
You cannot prove there isn’t
I agree with friedo - I respect people, not the teachings that are inflicted upon them. If you like, consider it an attack on both christians and islamics [or more correctly the religions and the aspects of them that teach it is right to force your beliefs on others either with violence, or by showering unwanted literature and lectures upon people to convert them]
Look, I was raised christian, and I dated in the islamic community. I know many people who are nice and just want to get on with life. I also know people that want to force their belifs down my throat, mandate what I can do with my body and my life [mainly treating me like a brainless broodmare to pop out sprogs, and treat me as a servant. And I am looking at a bunch of fundie christians more than the muslims I hung out with, though there are muslims that are fundie like this as well … ]
I am perfectly willing to be polite and listen to you for half an hour over coffee, but as soon as I say no thank you, shut the fuck up because no matter how you try and force me, I am not interested. I have never been preached at by a hindu or a buddhist, or a shinto, or a shaman [though there was that health food crystal whack job that tried to convince me I was reincarnated from some damned indian princess … to sell me some new age crap] What is it about the whole judeo-christian-muslim group that just goes all wacky and must force ideas down ones throat?
That doesn’t make it 50/50 though, I think the point of the “infinite possibilities” suggestion was. E.g. I’m thinking of a number (from 1 to infinity) that I’m never going to reveal, and you say the number is 7, but your friend argues that there are infinitely more numbers that it could be. Your friend can’t prove it isn’t 7, and you can’t prove it is; that doesn’t put both positions on equal footing.
Back to the OP though - that’s fantastic, Leaffan. It must be a really great feeling to get to the point where your child is old enough to be having real, grown-up conversations with.
I think this is exactly the right approach. Be polite about it when you’ve got no reason not to be, take into account that (most) people are sincere in their religious beliefs, but this sort of respect should not be a barrier to critical analysis - and especially not to criticism of all the baggage that comes with these sort of beliefs about the world (religious or not).
None of this means you need to go out and “convert” your friends and family. It just means that you don’t have to accept their views, and you can discuss them, if and when both parties are interested in doing so.
Take the debate to Great Debates, please. This is MPSIMS. The topic here is “discussing major issues with your kids,” not what the content of those discussions is or should be according to your own beliefs.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
leaffan, you are a good parent. I am a Christian, but that is my belief, and mine alone. I hope that when my kids have questions, that they will feel as free to come to me as your daughter was. I want to be as open and honest as you are, and leave them free to choose their own paths. Thanks for setting the example and sharing this!
People, it’s very simple. If you want and expect people to respect your beliefs, then you have to play your part by having beliefs that can be respected and are deserving of respect.
If you met someone who believed that (a) it’s okay to attack people based on their skin colour or (b) the world is flat and rests on turtles or © Bill Clinton is very probably a virgin, you wouldn’t respect any of these beliefs, no matter how sincerely they were held or advocated. They are not beliefs that can be respected, or should be, or are deserving of respect.
It’s exactly the same when you start suggesting there is a big invisible friend in the sky who grants some wishes when you mumble to yourself and who somehow provides you with a moral compass or who cares either way about what sort of food you eat or how you wear your hair. I would respect these beliefs if they were worthy of respect, but since they are exactly and perfectly analogous to believing in an Invisible Pink Unicorn, they aren’t, and I don’t.
I respect people, and I am always polite, kind and helpful towards people I meet. But don’t ask me to respect beliefs that are self-contradictory remnants of bronze-age science-fiction, because it would be absurd to do so.
Removed.
[moderating]
ianzin, you were asked to take the debate to Great Debates. Please follow Twickster’s instructions.
[/moderating]
My kids both attended Catholic school in Ontario and had similar beliefs to your daughter. I would caution you that she’s going to need some coping strategies for dealing with her required religion course.
My son did alright, but my daughter had a different teacher who violently opposed her disbelief and tried to fail her from that course.
Zero influence from you? I hope not.
On the other hand, methinks the two of you WON’T be seeing eye-to-eye when the other “talk” rolls around.
Smart kid. And kudos for you for your openness with her. My parents would have hung me by one leg from a tree in the front yard if I had tried to tell them that I discovered religion was a lie when I was in my early teens.
Hung you from a tree in the yard? What, did your family worship Odin?