If one person thinks lowering taxes on rich people ultimately benefits society by increasing economic activity, i can disagree with that person, while also understanding that it is a matter of opinion and Economics is hardly a factual discipline and there are alot of smart people with well thought out arguments for their particular theory.
But if one person says, if I light this candle under this statue, my financial troubles will go away, I think its reasonable to dismiss their theory of economics.
It’s not a Scotsman fallacy if one is not, in fact, one, just like someone who checks the box “vegetarian” on a polling survey form but eats steaks every week is not, in fact, a vegetarian.
I am not the OP, nor am I an atheist, but I don’t think the debate necessarily boils down this way. You can be irritated at someone’s beliefs or views, especially if those beliefs are highly prevalent, even if they are not imposing those views on you at all. If you feel that a great many people are holding views that aren’t supported by fact, that can be annoying in and of itself, and be a call for intolerance.
Except that vegetarianism is a practice: not eating meat. Christianity is a belief system, with no unified, universally accepted definition of what it constitutes. To use your metaphor, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East all have wildly different definitions of “steak”.
Has it ever happened that everybody in the world was behaving like this at once? No, that hasn’t happened. But it’s certainly how my everyday life goes; as well as the lives of quite a few other people.
Don’t go.
If you get there expecting some other sort of discussion, I wouldn’t join in on the religious portion. If the boss says all pork has trichinosis, I might say ‘generally these days it doesn’t.’ If the boss says ‘God told me vaccinations cause autism’, I’d probably point out that there’d be a whole lot more people with autism if that were true. Those specific claims aren’t actually religious. ‘God told us not to eat pork’ is religious. (Most Jews, by the way, don’t think God told everybody not to eat pork.)
In the USA in 2020? I doubt it.
And some of the people celebrating gay marriages are religious; which has been true all through our societal argument about this.
I’ll give you that one, but there’s no taxes on some secular things, either 2) optional, might work on some believers 3) I’ll give you that one 4) are mostly gone 5) and 6) do you really think the current POTUS is ramping that one up because he’s deeply religious? And atheist Russia had plenty of both. Bigotry may put on a religious face or an atheist one, but bigotry is bigotry in either case, and divide-and-conquer can be an entirely rationalist tactic.
Do you seriously think people only believe this nonsense for religious reasons, and that no atheists or agnostics believe such nonsense?
And do you seriously think all religious people believe this nonsense?
It underlies a great deal of the social structure of their lives. That’s real. That makes it not silly nonsense.
– actually, I think that’s what you’re complaining about: that you think the social structure is built up on nothing.
But so, in a logical sense, is any other social structure. People need to stand on something; and there’s a level and a point at which that something is going to be unprovable.
TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME…SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
“Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point —”
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
We’ve actually made considerable progress in arguing for justice and mercy as being independent of specific religious belief, or even of any religious belief. That progress has in large part depended on not only “putting up with”, but actively enlisting, religious people.
I used to watch debates of atheist vs theists, and I have seen the statement made that the only reason that they don’t murder is because god said it is wrong.
The reason that atheists are not trusted is specifically because if they are not told what is right and wrong by a deity, then they would be unable to tell whether or not murder was bad.
And if believing in god is all the keeps some of these people from being murderers, then I have no reason to rock that boat.
I’d have to assume the vast majority of those that say that are just trying to justify their beliefs. They know, on some level, that what they’re advocating is just a baseless assertion, so they need to scramble for a rationale.
Is that a post hoc argument? They aren’t murderers, religion says they shouldn’t be murderers, so they need religion.
This is something that I have been told by theists. That without religion there can be no morals. I disagree strongly with this assertion, but that does not mean it is not a common one.
You may be right, but I don’t know if they can be convinced of that.
As an atheist/agnostic, I can make a rational argument as to why murder should not be tolerated. As a theist, I don’t have to.
The converse is also true, in that they also use their religious beliefs to justify other “moral” codes that they have chosen to follow. Like, “I’d have no problem baking a cake for your wedding, but my god says I can’t.”
Same idea here. I could try to make a secular argument against SSM, but not a very good one, if I actually based it on reality. As a religious argument, however, I don’t have to.
Ahh but you see, it IS a matter of opinion, theirs. If they want to believe something, they can. You don’t have to. If your boss makes you, you are free to leave and find another place of work.
If someone prays, you don’t have to.
All the things that you are advocating on behalf of though, require YOU to be the asshole in order to tell them their beliefs are wrong …
The way to respond to that argument is to point out its implications; that atheists are thus more moral than theists, in that they don’t need a Big Sky Policeman watching them, to keep from murdering. Theists clearly do.
And telling someone, “God doesn’t exist” isn’t in the least more offensive than saying, “God has a plan” when you’re kid gets cancer. But in our culture atheists are expected to suck up the latter, and refrain respectfully from the former.