Okay, I wasn’t clear enough.
I am not saying that the absence of religion can lead to bad things. Not at all.
I am saying that the statement “the absence of something cannot lead to anything” is false.
What I understand is that spreading stupidity should not be supported and neither should the exploitation of stupidity.
Stupidity kills.
And who said this?
This is a decent principle, but what a couple of us have been trying to explain is that you’re acting as if you can draw a clear line between a belief and the behavior caused by the belief. That doesn’t always work. For example:
“Treating gays as second-class citizens is wrong and is harmful to society”
or
“Rewriting textbooks to remove evolution cripples science education and is bad for children and arguably harmful to the economy of the entire country”
or
“It’s cruel to deny medical treatment to children”
or
“Girls should be allowed to go to school”
All of these can get the same response: “I’m following God’s word.”
It’s difficult to “ignore the mumbo jumbo” when the mumbo jumbo is the cause of the behavior AND it’s pretty much the entire justification for the behavior. You can make legalistic arguments about how someone’s religious beliefs shouldn’t be reflected in the law, but there is nothing illegal about making laws based on religious points of view (although you can’t use the law to establish or ban a religion) and this argument doesn’t work as well when you deal with customs or social pressure instead of the law.
You mean atheism? (a religious person would say)
There is no objective agreement yet about what is stupid when it comes to belief.
I’ll tell you the same thing I tell religious people who can’t handle freedom of religion: if you can’t handle the fact that some people believe something different from you, then think of freedom of religion as a peace treaty that ended centuries of brutal wars in Europe. Don’t start the wars again, you will cause horrible suffering and you might not win.
And if I claimed that you’d have a point, but I didn’t.
The negative social effects of religion are both relevant and measurable; notably, I linked to an article about studies that did just that.
The difference being they are completely wrong (as is the norm among religious claims). Atheism doesn’t do anything.
And saying over and over again that “they do the same thing” doesn’t make them any more correct.
No it isn’t. “Help people because God says so” and “Kill people because God says so” are both based on the same underlying attitude of “Do what ‘God’ says”. Something rather vividly demonstrated by history.
Because they are fools and liars.
Of course there is; it just happens that religion is wrong about pretty much everything and the believers don’t want to hear it.
You’re right, it’s not always possible to make a distinction. But usually, you can anyway. For instance, you can tell someone they don’t have to like, or approve of, or even associate with gays, but you have to respect their rights in the public sphere.
Yes - and you can use your own beliefs to make laws too.
In a democracy, sometimes you don’t get what you want. Someone else believes their views are right and just, and yours are not. That’s why we have some things that are rights and some that are not.
“But no, atheists are the fools and liars.”
You see how completely empty and pointless your arguments are? They aren’t even arguments.
You’re right and they are wrong and there’s nothing to discuss, right?
You talk EXACTLY like a religious person.
And somewhere there’s an article about atheism.
You sure sound like you want to do something.
Of course. So what? Helping people is good, right? So stop saying all religion leads to bad things. It’s just silly.
Hey…There’s that false equivalence thingy again.
Nope.
I’m simply making the point that you can’t win this debate because your terms of debate are not agreed to by everyone in it.
The argument offered is a circular one. “Religion is stupid because its stupid.”
Nope.
The debate is “Having previously established that religion is stupid, what responsibility do we have to stop this nonsense”
Since an Atheist believes that position is a positive one for himself, I’m sure he’d conclude that position is best for society, so to that end hes responsible for changing minds when possible.
Conversely the same is true for a believer.
Exactly. It’s a circular argument, because “whether religion is stupid” IS what the debate is about.
Look, you guys can all smugly decide that you know everything and religious people are all stupid if you want. I certainly do that alot. But if you think you’ll get anywhere with it outside your own circle of smugness, you won’t. Your level of smugness will even turn off people who are otherwise inclined to agree with you. Nobody is going to listen to you or trust you if you start with the “I’m right, I know I’m right, and there’s nothing to discuss” thing. Even most religious people are smart enough not to start with that approach, though it’s how many of them think.
Some of you think exactly like religious people in every sense. You’ve just chosen a different belief system. You’ve reduced atheism to just another “religion” in every sense except for the religious part, complete with evangelizing, intolerance and closed-mindedness.
You still don’t understand.
This discussion isn’t to convince any believers.
This is a discussion amongst ourselves whether we would have to only defend when confronted , to sit quietly in a corner or do we have an obligation to engage in a sort of ‘evangelical atheism’.
No need to first debate whether religion is stupid. Everybody here knows it is.
If we were to engage in an actual discussion with an actual believer we would , of course, not resort to “No, you is stupid!!”
But here there should be no need to re-hash all arguments against regligion first
Which of course they won’t agree with because they believe the law needs to reflect their morality, and which doesn’t resolve non-legal issues like disowning or mistreating gay children. How do you propose dealing with that without addressing religion? You’re saying now that this usually isn’t the problem, but we can identify plenty of instances where the religious belief is the cause of the problem and the issues can’t be addressed without discussing that belief or acting on it. So would you at least agree that there are many cases where that has to be discussed and it’s entirely proper for atheists to bring it up?
Yes, and THAT is when the issue of convincing believers comes in. THAT is when you confront them, and you have a choice:
You can convince them of one of two things - to become atheists, or to simply respect your rights and leave you alone.
Which do you think will be more likely to work?
I imagine some on this board would, but whatever.
Plenty of religious people believe in freedom of religion.
People have the absolute right to disown (meaning to not pass on property to) any child for any reason, religious or not. That’s their business.
Mistreating a child, as in abuse or neglect, is illegal, and only a few religious nuts think it shouldn’t be.
Simple: “don’t abuse children, for any reason.”
That was easy.
You can address it just fine. You simply say it’s wrong or illegal.
In fact, you’re better off without addressing the religion. Don’t give them an excuse.
Nope.
Belief and action are two different things.
I’m well aware of that and never said otherwise. We’re discussing the ones that don’t.
I’m aware of what rights people have. I think you’re falling back on this position to avoid a more complicated question: what if people are doing something legal but awful based on religion. I disagree that that’s none of my business, and I think a lot of women and gays and African-Americans would agree- because over the decades they’ve seen both an acknowledgement of their legal rights and better treatment overall from society.
As long as you ignore the actual issue, yes.
Me: “This is wrong.”
Them: “God says it’s right.”
Now what?
Everybody understands that. The issue is that people’s beliefs influence their actions.