Talk with GF about religion again...

Another point: some posters here say that referring to Christianity as a “fantasy” and comparing God to a “magical sky pixie” is disrespectful. I contend, however, that a truly rational atheist will generally mean no particular disrespect toward the people who practice religion. Rather, the atheist in question knows that there is precisely the same amount of evidence available for the existence of God as he is known in the Christian religion as there is for “Binky the Space Clown, Lord of the Outer Reaches,” or any other entity you could think of. Since this rationalist (and yes, I’m one) bases his beliefs on testable hypotheses and evidenciary assertions, even the religion of billions of people assumes the same level of rationality as any other idea for which there is no support. Remember that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

To say that these references to “fantasy,” et cetera, are disrespectful is to ask that the atheist assign some level of importance to an idea that he has rejected as irrational.

Now, I realize that no one is a perfectly rational robot, and that we all have to engage levels of diplomacy and social interaction…I’m just expressing my idea of why such expressions might be justifiable from an atheist’s viewpoint.

Furthermore, I doubt that an atheist (of the type I describe in my last post) would hold a lack of respect for a practitioner of Christianity, as that person would understand what attractions the belief might hold, and how difficult it is to force oneself to “step outside” of it to look at it objectively.

[/hijack]

Anyway, Chekmate, I tend to agree that this relationship seems to be, from what you’ve described, mired down in philosophical differences, and seems likely to remain that way.

groan

I am agnostic, having been born and raised in a strict Christian household. I am not closed minded about religion, in fact, my children attend church with my parents on the weekends that I have them, and they both attended preschool(and Kindergaten, for my oldest son), at a Methodist run school.

My boyfriend says that he is a Christian, and clarifies, “perhaps not a good one”, and his mother is actually an extremely devout Christian, very active in her church, and is basically a pastor, by her schooling, although she’s not an active one at her church, with the exception of an occasional small blurb.

Despite this fact, while very rare, and really of no consequence to our relationship(we like to debate in general), he will launch into me with the Christianity debate, just to debate, mind you…and he’s doing it right now, through AIM…perhaps when we’re through, I’ll clean up the conversation, and post it here.

AHHHHHH! runs away screaming

~V

Ogre, I don’t know you well enough to know what you take seriously, but how would you like it if someone referred to something of vital importance to you as a “fantasy”? I’m pretty easy going about most things, and I heartily dislike how contentious debates about religion can get, but nevertheless, the use of the word fantasy would rankle a bit.

Please reconsider.
CJ

The whole issue of respect is subjective of course; an atheist may be quite honest and frank in saying that he/she believes religion is a false belief, but when this is embellished with words like ‘ridiculous imaginary pixies’ and ‘pathetic delusions of a sky deity’ (I just pulled those out of my ass as generic examples, not specifics of what anyone has actually said here), it becomes harder to believe that no disrespect is intended.

My daughter, when she was 3 years old, proudly presented me with a picture she had worked hard to paint especially for me. I could have said “you expect me to accept this? it’s nothing but a complete mess of random daubs in which I find no artistic merit whatever, try harder next time” - none of this would have been dishonest.

Or, it can mean that although you believe in Jesus’ sacrifice and so on, you also believe that there are other ways to reach salvation by being a good person and believing in God. For instance, my husband’s Catholic church (I am not Catholic, but went there for pre-Cana classes before our marriage, etc.) apparently teaches that good Muslims/Jews/etc. will go to heaven as well, even though they didn’t fully realize the “truth”. If I recall correctly, I think the United Church of Christ church I went to in my teenage years might have felt the same way.

cjhoworth: I’d like to think I’d engage that person in a conversation and attempt to draw out of them precisely why they said that. This, of course, assumes that the person is both willing to civilly discuss the matter and actually has some basis for their statement.

Mangetout: Of course, when someone sneeringly refers to something one holds dear, it’s difficult not to be offended…for the simple reason that the comment reflects on you. We all have to obey the rules of social interaction (or face a knuckle sammich, usually,) and if I were discussing this with you, one on one, I’d never use terms like “ridiculous,” “pathetic,” etc. If I did, I’d expect a drink thrown in my face, at the very least. I think I could make the point without bridging the gap between “there’s sound philosophical basis for referring to God as ‘fantasy’” and “you are a pitiful, benighted wretch for believing in God.”

One statement, you’ll notice, is directed at the concept, and one is directed at a person.

And no, I wouldn’t make a 3-year-old cry, but then, the people with whom I usually end up discussing religion aren’t 3 years old. I expect a little bit more mental resilience out of someone at whom I’m wildly gesticulating over beers.

Fair points I think Ogre and yes, most of them are more than 3 years old, however it’s important to realise that to some people, their belief is everything and that, from their perspective, attacking the belief is attacking them - unreasonable from a coldly logical stance, true, but people do all sorts of unreasonable things all the time, it’s not necessarily anyone’s obligation to correct them on that.

As Mangetout suggests, describing her religious beliefs as “this one point” may not be doing justice to their importance to her.

For those of us who have strong religious convictions (whether we can intellectually support them or not), they’re a lot closer to the heart, a bit more essential to who we really are, than how we feel about Britney Spears or the designated hitter.

To respect her, you may not have to respect every last thing about her, but if you don’t respect her core beliefs (or if she doesn’t respect yours), then you’re both much better off apart.

This suggests that because you have rejected an idea as irrational, it’s not disrespectful to denigrate it - despite the absence of evidence either for or against the idea.

That’s a funny way of looking at things.

Denise:
Jesus said in the Bible: “I am the way.”
He didn’t say, I am one of the ways.
Though if you want to disregard the basic message in the Bible on salvation, I don’t see how one can call themselves a christian then.

RTFirefly, I’m going to halfway agree and halfway disagree with you.

There is no evidence for or against a lot of ideas. (Ex: Binky the Space Clown.) In fact, most religious concepts have been carefully constructed and honed over the ages precisely so that there cannot be evidence against them. That’s what you call an “unfalsifiable hypothesis.”

Does a hypothesis deserve respect simply because it is unfalsifiable?

Most atheists would say absolutely not. At best it’s useless; at worst, it’s laughable.

On the other hand (here’s where I get around to agreeing with you, albeit in a roundabout way) it is not acceptable to denigrate an idea that another person holds dear unless that person has voluntarily held the idea up for scrutiny. (And even if they have offered it for scrutiny, depending on the person and your relationship with them, you might wanna tread lightly.)

If we’re debating religious beliefs on a message board, it’s acceptible to denigrate an idea–though not the person holding the idea, of course. And if the person has come to this forum, they either have to maintain the separation between themselves and the idea being discussed, or it’s probably healthiest to avoid religion threads.

But in the case of Chekmate and his gal, it would indeed be disrespectful of him to denigrate her personal beliefs when she obviously is not comfortable holding them up to scrutiny. She is not making the divide between her deep convictions and an idea to be examined with logic, kicked around, and possibly ridiculed—nor should she have to. However, Chekmate might find that he is not able to give the full measure of respect to someone who is unwilling to do this. Even if they have arrived at many of the same general beliefs and opinions about the world, they have fundamentally different thought processes, and this might make them incompatible.

I would agree with other posters that if her beliefs are probably a core part of her personality, then Chekmate must think long and hard about whether he can really devote himself to someone whose mental machinery is built on an unfalsifiable hypothesis that lies, from his point of view, somewhere along the contiuum between pointless and lunatic. He should make a respectful and gentle attempt to understand the depth and quality of her religious convictions. This would involve a great deal time, more listening than talking, and tremendous patience, but his love for her could make it worthwhile. He might find that her faith is built, to borrow a metaphor and flip it to the atheist perspective, on foundations of sand, and he cannot respect her because of it, despite her other fine qualities.

RTFirefly, what I’m saying is that there is no denigration strictly implied. From the viewpoint of strict rationalism, there can be no difference between the idea of God, as he is known in Christianity (or any other religion), and any imaginary entity or “fantasy” you can imagine, because there is precisely the same amount of evidence for (or against) either one…absolutely none. This is the property of unfalsifiablity that Podkayne refers to. Podkayne actually said almost precisely what I wanted to get across, so I won’t belabor the point.

What then follows is that there is no real difference (rationally) between the two, and you can comfortably equate the two. Thus there is no denigration implied or disrespect intended.

All that said, we live in a world that is at least partially defined by social interaction, and gentility and care are required in dealings with others…especially in the case of deeply-held beliefs.

Please don’t think I’m a robotic rationalist Gestapo (please…no Godwin’s Law. I’m invoking the image only.) I do not march into churches and declare zat Gott, he is a myth! A fantazzzzzy! Hell, I even normally keep my mouth shut about it in private converstaion.

vanilla:

Sorry it took me so long to answer you. He does hope that eventually I will believe in God. But the only “witnessing” he is even willing to do is by being a good Christian himself and setting an example. As I see that as a necessary part of his religion, I don’t feel pressured by his hopes. Whatever happens will happen, and we’ll be happy.

Cess: i am glad you two are happy.
If I may ask; what denomination is he?
Does he go to church?
Take the kids?
I used to go to a church (non-denominational) that decided who you could and couldn’t marry. They prayed over the two of you!
Anyone thinking of marrying someone not a “christina” would’ve been strongly advised not to!
I am glad I don’t go there anymore.

He’s… uh… some kind of, like, Protestant. I’ve been to his church and the Pastor explained it to me, but it wasn’t one of the ones that sticks out like Baptist or Presbytarian. And, no, his church is really far from us and he works on Sundays, so he doesn’t go to church. Which makes him sad. But I take the kids to my grandparent’s church (they’re Presbytarian).

Anyway, I know the church doesn’t mind me because that’s where we are getting married, and the Pastor (who is one of Mark’s good friends) has been giving us marriage counseling in preparation for it.

But a church deciding who you could and couldn’t marry… that’s a little overboard for me.

VANILLA –

But, you see, you and your church do not get to decide what Christianity is “supposed” to mean. Sorry. I am a Christian, and I do not believe in Hell as it is commonly understood, and – though I am not a Bible literalist anyway – nor do I believe that the historically and literally accurate idea of gahenna (or hell) is the eternal pit of fire where people are held in eternal agony.

I believe when people who are not saved by God die, they truly die. They die the death that atheists believe we all die – they cease to exist. I do not believe in Hell. I don’t know how anyone who believes in a God of love, mercy and justice can believe in Hell.

To be one of the means (and IMO the best means) by which humanity may be reconciled to God and thereby saved from true death.

Or, Christian can mean a person who follows the teachings of Christ as as he or she understands them, to the best of his or her ability. That doesn’t necessary include a belief in the traditional Hell.

So those are my thoughts on that. Since you asked.

And I find the idea that someone would refer to a “Magical Sky Pixie” and not realize they are being insulting to people of faith to be laughable. Such a person may be an atheist, but he or she apparently isn’t very smart.

I just wanted to poke my head in and mention that, being raised as a Catholic, going to Catholic schools for 13 years (kindergarten to the end of high school), and (still) going to Mass weekly, I was brought up to believe that Hell isn’t a fire-and-brimstone eternal torment, but that it was a complete and utter separation from God. I’d say that Jodi’s belief in Hell is similar. I’m not saying that Jodi is Catholic, or Jodi has the only correct interpretation of Hell, because I don’t know on either count. I’m just saying that the two beliefs are quite similar.

But it seems to me that if at least one major branch of Christianity believes in this interpretation, it’s a bit silly to say that one is not a true Christian if you don’t believe in fiery eternal torment.

Well, then anyone can be a christian, and believe whatever they want.
You can be a christian and not believe Jesus was resurrected, or that God doesn’t send anyone to hell (and why did Jesus mention it then?)
So “christianity” is anything you want it to be.
Which makes it nothing really.
If everyone believes completely different things about christianity and they are not all compatible beliefs, then there IS no christianity.
:rolleyes:

So you, then, believe there is no Christianity? How sad for you.

There may or may not be a subset of complete beliefs that makes up the essence of “true Christianity.” The point is that you don’t get to decide what those beliefs are. Get it? :rolleyes:

If four blind men believe different, conflicting things about an elephant, then there is no elephant.