Because it’s absolutely astonishing that this could really be considered a debate at all.
I don’t wanna convert anyone and I don’t wanna be converted. Leave me alone.
PS: It ain’t no one’s business upon which side of the fence I am.
And I agree completely with you. Except, of course, unless you’re an elected official, lawmaker, school principle, police officer, judge, or doctor where matters of your religion can and do spill into the decision-making processes which affect the public as a whole…
…Which, I might add, contains an ever-increasing number of athiests. You, personally, might never, ever inject your personal religion into the affairs of others, but it happens every single day. People get tired of it.
But your quarrel with such people wouldn’t be over whether or not God exists, but over public policy.
I think it has something to do with the fact that each side believes the other side is being astonishingly ignorant.
But that’s just me.
>But your quarrel with such people wouldn’t be over whether or not God exists, but over public policy.
Well, here’s the rub. In the case of somebody who believes a magical person somewhere presides over the universe and is going to reward them in the next life, it’s an impossible argument to win. Suppose I want some medical treatment and somebody in their official capacity denies it to me because their god wants them to. I don’t have any magic to counter with, I don’t have eternal bliss as a negotiating chip. They have the most important thing supposedly conceivable on the other side of the argument.
How can somebody serve two masters, when one of the masters is a god?
In general, I actually don’t feel it worth debating. However, the Galileo debate/not-very-unobvious-attack-on-atheism was sufficiently much like some kid running around poking his finger at you and running away, like a little prick, that it seemed worth it to fight some ignorance.
That said, I do find the raising of children into a religion to be creepy. I’ll just copy over my mini-rant/thesis from the other thread though, just since it answers the OP question and I don’t feel like rewriting it.
I have no problem with people believing in their Deit(y/ies) of Choice (DoC.) If you converted after you had studied the histories and methods of Buddhism and Sikhism and Confucianism and Zoroastrianism and everything else there is on the menu, and you’re happy with Christianity, then I’m glad for you.
But, I do find it questionable to teach your child to believe in your DoC when it can be shown that 99 times out of a hundred he would not chose it of his own.
I want the data available for exactly what evidence there is to support or not support religions or the beliefs of any particular individual religion. People should be able to make their own choices and they should have the availability of pertinent information. They shouldn’t be indoctrinated into any one belief before achieving maturity and they should be presented with the full menu if they chose to look at it.
If you’re going to sell someone on a religion based on the assertion that a deity will improve their lives, that’s a false assertion. There’s no evidence that those who are religious are happier than atheists. More likely the opposite is true going from the reverse correlation of intelligence and religiosity and prosperity and religiosity. There’s no evidence that a deity will answer your prayers. There’s no evidence that nudity is bad. There’s no evidence that homosexuals are bad. There’s no evidence that charging interest is bad. There’s no strong evidence that getting circumcised is good. There’s no evidence that worshiping an idol is any better or worse than worshiping an invisible spirit. There’s no evidence that the Jewish people are the chosen of God. There’s no evidence that you’re going to heaven or to hell. There’s no evidence that there’s one or many deities.
Proselytizing with assertions that have no basis in reality or anything demonstrable–especially when most of those assertions can be explicitly shown to be false–is just dishonest. If someone chooses to accept those assertions, that’s their business and I don’t care. But have some self-realization about how much evidence you have to support your position when you go off proselytizing or bringing up your children.
Let people examine Buddhism and Christianity, Hinduism and Shinto. Let them try them all out and see if anything resonates with them. Let them consider what we can demonstrate about the explanations for the universe and human morality, and decide whether reason and science is enough for them, or if they need a philosophy or religion to fill a spot in their life.
But like I said, be realistic about the lack of evidence behind deities. There’s no evidence to support their existence. Their history, spread, and continuation can all be explained through simple human interactions. If you chose the philosophy of one of these deities, be self-aware that you’re probably just following what some human(s) made up a few thousand years ago and there’s no Divine Rightness about it and you’re being an ass if you imply that there is.
Because religion has a stranglehold on our society, and among other things it breeds an obnoxious smugness. People can say just about anything and back it up with religion, and it goes completely unchallenged.
I’ve said quite often that if I had my way, anyone who ran for public office and mentioned god or religion as part of their campaign would automatically be disqualified and never allowed to run for office again. I would be more than happy to expand my view to cover the other things you mention: Leave God Out OF It is the best idea.