Are you here to speak on behalf of religious people? I ask this because you keep bringing up what religious people would or do supposedly say, and no amount of hiding behind “Well, they’re saying it, not me necessarily” can cover it up. What’s wrong with stating your own opinions, and letting any religionists state theirs?
I agree with Lance.
When challenged, stand your ground. When people argue for bad public policy (regardless of their motives), argue against it.
But there’s little point trying to convince someone who isn’t interested in learning. For anyone interested in engaging in a reasonable conversation, either to learn about the views of the other side, or perhaps (but rarely) open minded enough to actually consider changing their minds, then the conversation is worthwhile. Otherwise it’s just hot air.
People have to live in accordance to their deep-seated convictions. Challenging those is rarely fruitful.
I have a hard time respecting anyone who’d worship – not just fear, but worship – any god that would condemn anyone to eternal suffering. I mean … do the math! But I remind myself that they’re not doing the math, and might be worthy of respect for lots of other reasons.
Actually, the majority of the writers of the constitution and early congress were at best Deists, and the majority were likely closet atheists as their writing and correspondence suggests.
I don’t think there are any religionists here to state it.
If you want to just have a discussion where you all tell each other how right you are, fine, but that’s boring and unproductive, and likely to produce blatant falsehoods, as already seen here.
In any event, if you want to know what religious people think and don’t want to hear it from me, here’s a good start:
Here’s a story summing up one of their fairly recent polls on religious beliefs in general:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/world/americas/24iht-religion.1.13946559.html
PRopoganda works. What percentage of Christians are taught to “spread The Word”?
I explained how my interpretation happened. I think it was perfectly reasonable.
I didn’t know I was making a false assumption, so how would I know to ask?
Misunderstandings happen, and they aren’t anybody’s fault, and then you clear them up. So now we’re clear.
We have plenty, so their is no real need for you to champion their cause…unless it is actually your cause too, of course.
So whatever they say is “propoganda” and whatever you say is truth.
And somewhere, a religious person is saying exactly the same thing about atheists.
Isn’t the topic of the OP whether atheists should spread the word? Just a different one.
Where?
What religious people have posted on this thread? I don’t think I’ve seen one at all, but maybe I missed it.
In any event, I can post whatever I want. I haven’t even said whether I believe in God or not. As I already explained, I’m playing (ironically) Devil’s Advocate - and that’s a useful thing. If you don’t want your beliefs challenged, don’t post them here. (Yet another example of non-religious people acting exactly like the religious people they complain about).
Actually that just demonstrated what we’ve known for a while; that quite a lot of people are idiots.
The only requirement to being an atheist is simply not believing in god(s). It has little to nothing to do with affiliation or position re: religion. You can be an atheist and go to church every Sunday, and you can can be an atheist who thinks the whole exercise is idiotic. Granted, the realization that there is no god usually leads to ceasing religious observations, but it is by no means a necessity.
Either quote her or him, or(better yet) have her or him respond personally to this thread. Who the hell appointed you as religion’s proxy?
Actually I’m happy to have a debate about religious convictions. The problem is that you aren’t even remotely interested in debating honestly Lance. You’ve dragged out every tired old bit of faulty debating from the basement and given it a good and thorough airing. It still stinks. False equivalency, My post is my cite, Circular logic, rules lawyering, and even good old fashioned playground level nuh-uh!
Who the hell appointed you as the person who gets to tell people what they can post about or why?
And who said I wasn’t religious anyway?
As the person whose views were being mischaracterized, I didn’t think it was reasonable: you made assumptions about what I meant that ran counter to what I actually wrote. In the meantime, has this changed your position at all? It seems to me that I’ve at least illustrated that these issues can be more complicated than you were asserting.
I’m not buying this argument.
People could have the fictitious belief that it’s good to do things that cause significant public harm, irrespective of religion. It would be a reasonable public service campaign to disabuse them of their beliefs. For example, in South Africa, many believe that having sex with a virgin cures AIDs, and that AIDs isn’t caused by unprotected sex, etc.
Theoretically, folks who are arguing against Lance have a point, that the educated have a responsibility to educate the ignorant.
Practically speaking, though, attempts to do this have the opposite of the intended effect. I often wish Dawkins would simply stick to evolution and not talk about religion, because he ends up riling up more resistance to evolution than if he kept his trap shut sometimes. Of course, I defend his right to speak his mind.
If you’re moved to start a public education campaign against the foolishness of relition, well … good luck. I hope you’re effective, but I’m deeply skeptical and strongly suspect you’ll do more harm than good to your cause.
Equally importantly, we have to show mutual respect, in order to have a civil society. Sure, there’s a line across which we don’t allow anyone to cross: but that line is set by general public agreement, and that line moves over time.
I also often remind myself that I’ve been dead wrong about far simpler questions. If I’m wrong in my lack of belief in the supernatural, well, I’ll be very surprised, but it won’t be the first time I have a big “doh!” moment.
It’s too bad you don’t get my points. Maybe if you would listen more you would.
I’m sure you’ll do so much better debating a real religious person though. That will really turn out well.
Knock it off or take this to the BBQ Pit.
The assumption was reasonable, even if it was false. Reasonable means a reasonable person could look at the words and have the conclusion.
It’s how misunderstandings happen, and they happen all the time.
I would never say they are simple. In fact, I think I’m the one saying they aren’t.
On who’s behalf are you posting?
Are you, or are you not religious?
Are you playing devil’s advocate, or are you stating your own opinion?
Throughout the thread you’ve been drawing simplistic distinctions between beliefs and actions. I agree other people have offered simplistic reasoning in some cases.