How very didactic.
We could take all your posts and put a bible in your hand and give you a stupid accent and a pulpit and it would work pretty much the same.
But this isn’t about who is right.
You don’t seem to be getting this. This is about how, and if, you can convince someone else that you are right.
Yet a religious person will say their beliefs are based on facts and logic.
I wouldn’t, but they would. I’m just playing, in an ironic use of the term, Devil’s advocate.
If you approach someone with that attitude, they’re not even going to begin to listen to you in the first place though. I sure as hell wouldn’t.
So don’t bother.
How many people in the world, or America, are atheists vs. religious?
At this point, I think you should shut up for your own good. You’re not helping yourself. You’re not convincing a single religious person of anything.
OK
The origin of your discussion was not included in your original post. I think it is relevant. This version shows your Mom to be more the aggressive one.
It’s unfortunate you and your mother did not have a mutually respectful discussion. Hopefully, for both of you, this will improve. I hope your relationship is otherwise good.
Yes, you’ve established that you believe what you believe, hands down.
I never said that. See, this is your problem. You can’t break out of your own mind’s limitations. Much like them.
Wow.
You verge on paranoia.
If a religious guy came to you and tried to kill you, I’d defend you. But in a debate, I wouldn’t even bother, that’s for sure. You’re on your own, and you’ll get nowhere.
Again, lance strongarm, keep the personal commentary in The BBQ Pit and discuss the arguments and the issues in this forum. You’ve been told about this a lot of times and you need to take it seriously.
No, because I’m not spouting baseless falsehoods. No matter how many times you try to pretend that atheism and theism are intellectual equals, it won’t be true.
Not with reason, certainly; if believers were interested in reason they wouldn’t be believers. Getting in their face and pointing out just how ridiculous their beliefs are has the virtue of being hard for them to ignore. It also appears to work better than being polite.
And they’d be wrong; and for that matter most probably wouldn’t. They’d talk about faith instead.
More than there were when the atheists were quiet and submissive like you want.
An important difference, though, is that our civil society is not (any longer, at least) officially committed to, say, remaining neutral on the question of whether Aryans should be accepted as the Master Race and allowed to segregate and kill other people on account of it. And, of course, we are not legally required to maintain neutrality on the question of whether some dude in a lunatic asylum really is Napoleon Bonaparte, either.
But our civil society is offically committed—up to the hilt, via the highest law of our land—to remaining neutral on the question of whether or not there is a God, or Gods, and how such a God or Gods might require us to behave. No matter how self-evident our rationalist presupposition of a reality consisting only of rational “facts and logic” may seem to us atheists, our nation is constitutionally barred from officially agreeing with that position (or with the position of anyone who happens to disagree with it).
And in a polity that officially refuses to take sides about what people should believe when it comes to religion, there’s only so far you can go in telling your fellow citizens what they should believe when it comes to religion without coming across as merely an arrogant dickhead.
That, I think, is the point of the “your opponents are just as sincerely convinced of absolute rightness as you are” argument: On an issue where there’s no possible ultimate arbiter because the highest law of the land is committed to remaining neutral, sincere fundamental disagreement about the premises should end the dispute.
Sure, in such a case both disputants are free to go on vehemently asserting “I’m right and you’re wrong” until their throats give out, but they both just look like assholes except to the folks who already agree with them.
Hmmm, that remains to be seen. There are a whole lot of fairly sloppy-thinking conformists out there (none in here, of course!) who like to associate themselves with whatever opinion trends are currently fashionable or edgy. Recent increases in the numbers of self-identified atheists may not mean much more than that the recent “New Atheist” cultural buzz has managed to attract a lot of those trend-followers.
When I think back to the upsurges in the social visibility and popular appeal of atheism observed in some western societies in, e.g., the late eighteenth century and the 1920s, and how they dwindled again during periods of resurgent religiosity in succeeding decades, I remain uncertain that today’s high-profile New Atheism movement has really “done more to convince people” in the long-run sense of “convince”.
That’s not what I’m saying.
No, it doesn’t.
Exactly.
I have never said I want you to be quiet and submissive. Not at all. Just don’t act like an asshole in your quest against assholery.
Sorry, didn’t mean it that way and changed it, and still probably didn’t get it the way I meant it.
You didn’t mention that.
Your OP sounded like you wanted to pin HER into a corner.
And she thinks that of you and what she believes to be your nonsense.
What harm is her belief to her though? It’s just a belief. If it’s not true, whatever. Perhaps feeling good when you are old is better than the alternative.
I’ve no answer to this question (I too know people for whom doubting the existence of an afterlife would be utterly devastating, and I don’t ever try to convince them otherwise), just wanted to thank you for asking it. I’ll read the answers with interest.
Well, I feel a duty to defend secular rule of law.
The mockery, I enjoy for free.
I tell them that this is a devout atheist household. That seemed to freak out the JWs at the door, and they never returned. It was polite, and it was true, and I see no reason to hide it. Got a problem with not being in the closet?
If a theist is being polite and not bothering anyone or scaring the horses, I see no reason to challenge anything. I also see no reason to lie about my beliefs because the very existence of atheists might challenge theirs.
On the other hand, if someone is justifying any law that will affect me and mine because whatever brand of invisible sky pixie they believe in wants it, I will challenge them to either produce this pixie or give very good evidence the pixie exists. If they think this is offensive behavior, tough.
Unless the belief leads to harmful behavior, why should you have any responsibility at all. I find reality TV even more irritating than religion, but I don’t try to talk people out of watching.
Unless I’m drunk.
But religion does lead to harmful behavior.
snip.
Simple, when a belief transcends from the mental into the material world it begins to have an effect on the believer and those that care for them. Let’s just use a less inflammatory, and far less impactful abstraction to demonstrate it.
Suppose Mum tells you that she believes in pixies that live in her garden. Initially this can seem harmless and quaint. However it turns out that in an effort to appease the pixies who damage her flowers at night she begins putting out milk for them. She shows you the empty bowl as proof. So what? we are tempted to say where’s the harm? Now suppose that mum is getting on in years, and has no income. She depends upon you for support and medication. You give her the money she needs for her medication, and instead she buys extra milk for the pixies. Her health begins to suffer. Her belief is causing her harm. It’s wasting resources she cannot afford to spare, and creating an issue where one need not exist. Common sense would tell us that it is likely a cat or raccoon that is consuming the milk and trampling the flowers, but her belief is blocking the simple explanation. Had we nipped the pixies in the bud when she showed up the bowl all that time ago, we wouldn’t be having the problem now.
If you believe in God, Allah, Buddha, Yahweh or Thor then that is your issue.
The moment that you let that belief affect your political views is the moment you should have your views challenged.
Atheists just believe in one less of those superstitions than religious people do.
If the OP’s mother is allowing her religious beliefs to determine who she’ll vote for then yes, the OP should ask her to defend her beliefs. Otherwise it’s just a harmless bit of quackery, no different than believing in homeopathic remedies or astrology.
No they don’t. Atheists may believe any number of incorrect things, for example, I know of an atheist on a message board who is consistently incorrect in the way he describes the motives and general behaviour of all religious people, yet he appears to believe it quite firmly.
Sometimes, yes. Some people take no action at all directly attributable to their faith. Some act only on the nicer impulses their faith produces. Some of the nicest people I know are devout; I’m sure they’d be equally nice if they were nonbelievers, but that’s not the point.