I have nothing against people who don't believe in spirituality, but people who proselytize non-

[highplainsdem]

belief can be every bit as tiring as religious fundamentalists proselytizing their belief systems.

Both IMO tend to seem insecure in their beliefs, apparently uncomfortable unless they can convert others to their belief systems, or at the very least try to beat them into the ground with ridicule, all the while warning anyone else who will listen about the alleged dangers of the belief system they're railing against. Both fundamentalist believers and fundamentalist non-believers tend to focus on everything bad they can pin on the belief system they oppose, and to ignore anything good that apparently came out of that belief, or non-belief.

It's been pointed out here, and elsewhere, that religion is basically a form of tribalism, and all kinds of beliefs including rigid non-belief can become forms of tribalism.

And it's the tribalism itself that defines and encourages conflicts.

If you look at the world's religions and spiritual belief systems and all you can see are the bad things that were done, then you're blinding yourself to way too much.

Likewise, you're blinding yourself if you look at people without any religious beliefs and choose to focus only on anything they do that you consider wrong, and blame it on their "godlessness."

Actions are more important then belief systems, let alone words and labels.

Actions that are helpful tend to spring from an empathy with others that is deeper than formal religious rules of conduct, deeper than coldly logical arguments about ethical behavior for non-believers.

You can argue all you want about whether the source of that empathy is something nebulous and beyond individuals, or strictly biological. But I think it's important to note that almost everyone would agree there's something very WRONG with any individual lacking in empathy, whether we define that person as "evil" or as "psychopathic."

And it's just an important to notice when tribalistic tendences get in the way of our own ability to empathize with others. Including those with different belief systems.

[KCDebbie]

1. Non-believers don't proselytize - it's not a religion...

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2019, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Non-believers may refute an issue if some religious doctrine with a plethora of FACTS and SCIENCE, but presenting facts and science is not proselytizing...

See the difference?

I thought not!

[highplainsdem]

3. Really? See this link:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-atheist-recruiting-machine

[MineralMan]

4. Richard Dawkins does not post on DU.

He's free to do as he pleases, however, just as are the religionists who threaten Hell for non-believers. Why should an atheist not provide a counter message to that?

He is not the "leader" of atheism. He's an individual atheist, just as we all are.

[highplainsdem]

8. ????? I don't recall suggesting that Dawkins ever posted here.

And you don't have to have a formal leader for your belief system to be proselytizing for it.

[PJMcK]

91. Atheism is not a belief system

In fact, it is exactly not that.

[zipplewrath]

182. Actually, it is

Since one can't "prove" anything about an infinite diety in any way, it is a conclusion made in the absence of proof. i.e. a belief.

[PJMcK]

185. Boy, that is backwards thinking!

Show me proof that a god exists otherwise it doesn't exist. One cannot prove a negative and your logic is seriously flawed.

But, to each their own.

[zipplewrath]

186. "One can't prove..."

That's the point, and what makes it a belief.

[MineralMan]

189. Atheism is not a belief. It is simply non-belief in a particular thing.

At one time, I believed in Santa Claus. At age five, I stopped believing in Santa Claus, and never believed that children's belief again. I required no proof either when I believed, nor when I stopped believing.

However, I was no longer able to believe in the existence of the jolly old elf. So, I didn't.

I did not believe that Santa didn't exist. I simply did not believe that he did.

Same with deities. I don't believe they exist, since there is zero evidence that they do.

[zipplewrath]

190. "I don't believe..."

You do believe there is no deity. Again, what is being discussed is belief, i.e. conclusion in the absence of proof.

[MineralMan]

191. No, zipplewrath, I do not believe that any deities exist at all.

I do not believe in the concept of deities. I do not believe in imaginary things.

It may seem to you to be a fine distinction, but it is not belief. It is disbelief. It is the absence of belief. It is the opposite of belief.

I have no belief in deities or anything else that is imagined by the human mind. I have no belief in anything that is not physically sensible.

[zipplewrath]

197. If that were so

If it was not a belief, you'd merely state that you know nothing of dieties. But quite the opposite, you go further and state that you know that there are none. Conclusion in the absence of proof.

A bit like aliens. I don't know if there are aliens, especially ones capable of interstellar travel. So if someone asks me if they exist, the answer is "I don't know". There is about as much evidence of aliens as there are of gods. However, if one asks me if I believe they exist, I'd probably answer that there was a very good possibility.

[MineralMan]

198. ..

If you don't know what those two dots mean, ask guillaumeb.

[LongtimeAZDem]

204. Nonsense; one can lack an affirmative belief while still understanding the concept. I know what

leprechauns are, but not only do not have an affirmative belief in their existence, I have a high enough confidence in their nonexistence to state is as a fact.

Am I open to being proved otherwise? Certainly; but absent that proof, i believe the total lack of evidence for them makes declaring their nonexistence reasonable.

As I said below:

Atheism is the same thing, when we say "no god", we are saying "while it is impossible to disprove the existence of an ephemeral entity, the evidence proffered thus far is so lacking as to render a decision against the affirmative claim".

But it's really a pain saying that every time, especially since it shouldn't have to be explained.

[zipplewrath]

206. Right

Some atheists actually merely state that they know nothing of a god and see no proof thereof. However, the vast majority actually assert the knowledge of the LACK of existence of one.

[LongtimeAZDem]

209. As a result of the lack of evidence. We're back to Russell's Teapot

I cannot prove that there's no teapot orbiting Mars, but the total lack of evidence for one, combined with the lack of a mechanism for putting one there, makes it a logical conclusion to say "there isn't a teapot orbiting Mars".

Again, equating that type of conclusion with religious faith is dishonest nonsense.


Disclaimer: given that Elon Musk may have put a teapot in the trunk of his Tesla, this version of the argument may become obsolete. The logic still holds, however.

[zipplewrath]

218. Well, outside of faith

It would be silly for anyone to assert there is no teapot orbiting Mars because we'd virtually have no way of knowing. It's why science often uses the expression "known", as in "How many KNOWN planets are in the solar system".

The accurate statement is there are no "known" teapots orbiting Mars. There's alot of junk out there. For example.

On Sept. 3, 2002, amateur astronomer Bill Yeung found an asteroid. Initially named J002E3, astronomers tracked it and found that it was in Earth orbit, which was surprising. Objects within the Earth-moon system are quickly ejected, meaning this asteroid must have been a recent capture. Spectroscopic observations revealed the "asteroid" had a signature consistent with white titanium dioxide paint NASA used to paint the Saturn V rockets. Asteroid J002E3 turned out not to be an asteroid at all but the upper S-IVB stage of Apollo 12's Saturn V from 1969.

Now an interesting statement would be "there are no known deities".

[LongtimeAZDem]

205. Conclusion in the absence of proof, is not belief, but "faith"

And MineralMan is quite correct; atheism requires no affirmative belief. It is simply the lack of belief in a deity or deities.

While some atheists do hold affirmative beliefs related to that, those are not necessary components of atheism.

[zipplewrath]

207. Basically the same thing

The type of belief we are discussing here is basically the same as faith.

[LongtimeAZDem]

208. No, they are not; this is the problem with arguing with the religious: the definitions keep changing

To argue that the belief in a proposition based on evidence and rational argument is the same as belief in the absence of evidence are the same thing is ludicrous, but that is how such arguments go.

The tactic is to get the atheist to posit "belief" as the acceptance of a logical conclusion, and then attempt to equate that with religious faith.

It's inaccurate, and dishonest.

[zipplewrath]

210. Not what I'm doing

There are multiple meanings of belief. One of them is "2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something."
This is the version of belief being discussed. There is another kind that I suspect you mean which "I believe I'll have another" or "I believe what he said is true" or something of that nature. There are reasons or evidence for such things. But a conclusion drawn when it is impossible to have any actual knowledge is a belief of the faith variety.

[LongtimeAZDem]

211. Then your conclusion is accurate, but meaningless. /nt

[zipplewrath]

212. Not exactly

What was being discussed was whether some athiests "believe" that they know there is no god. Many of them do.

[LongtimeAZDem]

214. Again, it's meaningless, since you pick and choose the definition of "believe" at will. /nt

[NeoGreen]

215. In an attempt for clarity...

...

[zipplewrath]

219. In a great case if irony

our firewall is blocking all the images. So much for clarifying.

[NeoGreen]

220. Apparently...

...it's not my problem.

[trotsky]

237. Nope, you're completely wrong.

Listen to the atheists who are telling you.

If someone proposes a brand new god, and you say "Hmm, nope, I don't see enough evidence to believe in that god" - do you now have an active belief system of disbelief in that god?

[zipplewrath]

239. Nope

But if you say "There is no such god", you probably are expressing a belief.

[trotsky]

241. Depends on how the god is defined.

If it's defined in an explicitly contradictory way, one can declare no such god exists.

But than you for admitting you were wrong, and clarifying what you meant.

[zipplewrath]

242. How did I do that?

Just curious.

[trotsky]

243. You admitted that lacking belief in someone's brand new god is not a belief system in itself.

That's all we've been telling you. If you want to switch back and defend your original claim, now you need to demonstrate how rejecting belief in previously defined gods like Yahweh or Allah is different than rejecting belief in a newly invented god.

Please proceed.

[zipplewrath]

245. Well, not what the OP was talking about

The OP was talking about folks to assert that there is no god.

[trotsky]

247. But that's not what you originally argued.

You took issue with someone saying that atheism isn't a belief system.

Not every atheist asserts there is no god.

Ergo, you were wrong.

[zipplewrath]

248. I believe I suggested "most"

I've acknowledged that not all atheists assert there is no god, but at the very least many, if not most.

[trotsky]

249. Nope, here's what you said in response to the claim "Atheism is not a belief system."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304210

zipplewrath (13,691 posts)
182. Actually, it is

Since one can't "prove" anything about an infinite diety in any way, it is a conclusion made in the absence of proof. i.e. a belief.

No qualifiers.

Your own words.

[zipplewrath]

258. In the context of the OP

It was that kind of atheism to which I alluded.

[trotsky]

260. You didn't specify that at all.

But whatever, you've backed off the claim anyway. That's fine by me - you save face however you'd like.

[zipplewrath]

262. No I didn't

I presume that the OP is always the context.

[trotsky]

265. Seems silly when your reply is addressing a specific statement made by another poster...

but again, however you need to save face. You're always right, never wrong, never make mistakes, etc.

[Voltaire2]

267. Is your disbelief in the tooth fairy a belief system?

[zipplewrath]

268. Not really

More a statement of trust in the people that told me the fairy tale to begin with, and then admit to the ruse.
Not to mention the kid across the street got more money that I did so the little fairy can stick it as far as I'm concerned.

[trotsky]

298. Can you prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist?

If not, then you have an active belief that it doesn't.

Your logic.

[zipplewrath]

299. Roughly speaking

Mostly because literally everyone that promulgated the myth to me has admitted to the acts attributed to the fairy.

[trotsky]

300. So no, you can't conclusively prove it.

So your non-belief in the tooth fairy is a belief system too.

Your logic.

[zipplewrath]

301. Um, yes I can

What I wrote is often called "evidence". Strangely, one can also find this kind of evidence on line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_fairy

One finds a distinctly different discussion when search on "god".

[trotsky]

302. No, you can't.

That Wikipedia article was clearly written by an a-tooth-fairyist.

You can't disprove the tooth fairy by just declaring it so. The tooth fairy is beyond your understanding and science.

Your logic.

[zipplewrath]

303. No

What you are suggesting is that it may not be possible to CONCLUSIVELY dispel the myth. Even within science this is often true which is why even things that are accepted as theories or laws still are tested as new tests are conceived.

You attempt to compare this to a situation in which there is NO evidence one way or another.

[trotsky]

304. Aha. There's actually lots of evidence against many gods.

Helios was claimed to pull the sun across the sky in a chariot. We KNOW that is not true because we have direct evidence of how the earth moves around the sun.

Agree or disagree?

Will you allow people to say they believe Helios does not exist, or will you claim they are disbelieving "on faith" and there is no evidence either way?

[zipplewrath]

306. Nope

You're right, that there are gods that can be "falsified". The whole "earth on the back of turtles" thing is another example.

It is actually one of the problems that many faiths deal with regularly, the falsification of various aspects of their deities. The Roman Catholic Church did battle with science for decades as various explanations of acts of god were shown to actually just be "acts" of nature. We still deal today with the crowd that insists that the earth is only 6000 years old. Many faithful have "learned" to stop trying to connect specific events or phenomenon to a deity because it actually makes their deity, or at least the "evidence" of existence, falsifiable. Even worse for the faithful was when "acts of god" could be "recreated" by knowledgeable men. It created the conflict of "does doing this make one a god?".

Almost in reaction to this reality, many concepts of deities have incorporated the concept of pure faith into them. i.e. it is the intent of the deity that they cannot be proven to exist such that faith alone must dictate the basis of belief. It's part of the concept behind the "doubting Thomas" story.

[trotsky]

307. So what you're saying is...

there IS evidence against many specific gods, and there IS evidence against the existence of the tooth fairy, and even though we might not be able to conclusively PROVE those entities don't exist, saying "I don't believe X exists" is a reasonable statement, open to the possibility of error, without having to claim someone is actually making a statement of faith?

[zipplewrath]

308. All entities

I'm saying that one cannot make a blanket assertion of "no deities" on anything but belief since ultimately there is no way to prove one way or another that there is not one that does exist.

[trotsky]

309. There's no way to prove one way or another that "no unicorns" exist.

We can play this game all day, but the bottom line is you are making a special exception for gods that you do not make for any other entities or concepts.

That's all I wanted to clarify. Thanks.

[zipplewrath]

310. Actually

You can't. You can make a strong case however since of course none have been seen, photographed, or fossils found. I've seen a Jackalope but I'm pretty sure it was a fake. But these things are falsifiable of course because there are certain assertions about how to detect them. Deities on the other hand...

[trotsky]

311. No god has ever been seen, photographed, or physical evidence found either.

And just about every theist makes definite assertions about their god(s).

So again, why the special exception? You haven't explained. I understand your investment in your position, but you haven't demonstrated why you think gods must be treated differently.

[zipplewrath]

312. No special exemption

They make assertions, but frequently nothing that can be falsified. Actually, they've kinda learned to do that. It's the concept of "you can only know him through faith alone" feature. It won't be surprising to most of the faithful that there are no photographs. And there's a reason that Jesus rose from the dead and "left this earth". Yes, there are still people that make falsifiable assertions, that doesn't really bear on the assertion that there are none.

[trotsky]

313. Yeah, that's exactly what you are defending.

It doesn't change the fact that the same standard you use to dismiss all sorts of things isn't OK when someone else uses it to dismiss gods.

That's called a double standard.

Feel free to have the last word if you wish. I'm done.

[zipplewrath]

314. No

Any discussion that involves only assertions that can't be verified either way fall into this category. "Good" art is another one.

I'm sorry this bothers you so.

[edhopper]

321. If the assertion is that God

or any deity has had ANY impact on the physical Universe. Evidence for that should exist. If not the claim of such an entity is not accepted.
If the physical Universe looks and acts exactly as it would whether any god exist, then that works against any claim a god exists.
If such entity has no impact on the Universe, why call it God?

[zipplewrath]

324. Undetectable impact

We can't detect everything. Some things we've only been able to detect in the last couple of decades. Don't be surprised if we create ways to detect things going forward that today we don't even know exists today. Furthermore, many deity concepts consists of gods that unpredictably interfere in natural processes on an inconsistent basis. So "miracles" or whatever would appear to be otherwise natural events so there would be nothing to detect.

"Unexplained" events happen all the time. Tumors shrink for no apparent reasons. Fetuses stop growing and are reabsorbed almost without note. We in the scientific community offer natural hypotheses for why these things occur, but since they are generally based upon statistical probabilities, they have little relation to individual events. Most of us tend to accept them because they "seem" rational.

And as of yet I don't believe anyone has "detected" why the singularity occurred. (Although I think I read we're moving away from that hypothesis.)

[edhopper]

325. So the claim of atheists

that there is no evidence that any god exists, but they would be open if such is offered is the valid position.

The rest is simply a God of the Gaps argument.

[zipplewrath]

330. fine

My assertion has always been about those who assert affirmatively that there are no dieties. One can challenge particular ones (and many are clearly falsifiable), but a blanket denial requires roughly the same basis as those expressing in the affirmative.

[edhopper]

331. My experience

is that is a small minority of atheists. Most say they don't believe or see no evidence for one. Therefor, no reason to think there is a God.
Your experience might be different.

As for a blanket denial. I would say there is no God that any human has ever stated belief in that there is any evidence for.
Perhaps there are one or more I am not aware of. I am open to hear about any of these deities for which there is evidence.

But as long as the they are scoring a perfect zero, I think nonacceptance of deities is the default position.

[Mariana]

332. Honestly, I've never encountered an atheist

who wouldn't change his or her mind if presented with compelling evidence of the existence of one or more deities. Perhaps there exist some atheists for whom no amount of evidence would be enough, but as I said, I've never come across one.

Most religionists I've met are Christians. As such they are absolutely adamant their their god exists and is the only one. There are no other gods, period, full stop. I've heard some of them say outright that there is absolutely nothing that could ever convince them that any other god exists, other than the one they worship.

It's funny how some people think these positions - I don't believe without evidence vs. I believe this and will believe it forever no matter what - are equivalent.

[edhopper]

333. I have met many believers with doubts

but also met those you speak of, who are sure of God. So much so they deny evidence counter to their beliefs.
Those along the creationist spectrum.

Saying there is no God, is not the same as saying I am 100% sure no god exist.

[zipplewrath]

334. nonacceptance of deities

Not sure what that means.
The logical conclusion is that there is no way to know one way or another.
I will admit personally I've quit really looking since in theory there is no way to detect, so why try.
I'll add to that the concept that if they are as infinite and all powerful as often suggested, I probably can't really conceive well enough to understand what I'm seeing, so again, probably not alot of point.
Oh, and I've met alot of atheists that quite aggressively assert that in fact they know that there are no deities.

[edhopper]

335. Do you accept that bigfoot is real

or alien UFOs have visited Earth or that tax cuts for the rich increase revenues? No way to know either way?
So when it comes to any God, I don't see any reason to accept one exists.
Why should the conclusion be there is no way to know?
The concept itself seemed to come from an early time when humanity did not have any real knowledge of the Universe and a diety answered questions. Those answers turned out to be wrong. So I see no logic in continuing to consider it a likely choice. I am open to new evidence that says different.

But you are speaking to atheist here, and I don't think any of them say that.

[zipplewrath]

337. If you read the thread

I've addressed these kinds of topics before. Myths like bigfoot and Nessie aren't completely falsifiable because of course they could be so rare or have other habits that tend to make them transparent. But the total lack of any verifiable evidence, combined with a huge problem with large number of documented hoaxes, definite puts them in the category of highly unlikely.
Tax Cuts for the rich is merely a problem of context. Plenty of studies upon their effects.
The conclusion that there is no way to know is because many deities fundamental description is that they are undetectable. It drives them towards the concept that they can only be "known" through faith.

You can be open to evidence, but you're setting up a criteria that violates their very description to start with. It's like saying that until I see a clear rose, I don't believe that roses exist.

[edhopper]

338. Description of deities

based on what?
Bronze Age stories.
Who is describing these deities and how did they come by those descriptions.
If they are just an abstract construct with nothing to back it up, why give any credence to existence?

[LongtimeAZDem]

339. If there is no way to know one way or another, then there is no reason to believe they are real.

If proof of their existence were present, there would be a way to know; therefore, your premise posits there is no proof of their existence.

Therefore, there is no reason to entertain the notion, outside of wishful thinking.

"Oh, and I've met alot of atheists that quite aggressively assert that in fact they know that there are no deities."

Why not?. Unicorns too.

[Farmer-Rick]

277. It is not a conclusion

If there is any actual physical evidence of a god...any one of them...that you can show us, many atheist are ready and willing to admit its existence.

All you need do is give us real scientific evidence. I'm sure an infinite deity could easily pull that off.

[zipplewrath]

278. covered this yesterday

If you merely state you see no basis for the belief, you're golden.
The OP was about people asserting that there was no god. That is a conclusion.

[PJMcK]

286. A question

What do you believe? Why should I believe you?

Your arguments throughout this thread are extremely weak efforts to draw an equivalency between faith and non-faith. They are not two sides of the same coin. If something has no evidence for its existence, why would I have faith that it exists?

In your backwards logic, you expect me to prove something doesn't exist. That's not how logical thought works. If you want me to believe something, prove it or back off.

However, you refuse to accept that simple logic and I have no idea why unless it is direct conflict with what you believe.

Regardless, your beliefs are irrelevant to my atheism. I believe in nothing that lacks a scientific basis.

In any event, as I wrote, to each their own.

[zipplewrath]

288. Well, belief is the whole thing

I'm married to an atheist who is absolutely convinced there is no "god" (inifinite being etc.). I frequently point out that that conclusion is based on no more information than the faithful. It is one thing to not believe someone else's belief. It is a whole separate thing to assert a separate conclusion on no more information than the believer.

The OP was about this kind of non-believer. The type that asserts the point of view that the believers are wrong, and that there is no deity.

I don't expect you to "prove" anything. Quite the opposite, I assert you are as limited in proving there is no deity, as the faithful are limited in proving that there is.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

285. Atheists like to say that atheism is not a belief system, because it doesn't fit their self-image

The fact is, saying "there is no God" is every bit as much a statement of religious belief as saying "there is a God". Both are statements for which there is no proof.

[PJMcK]

287. That's just absolutely wrong

Logical thought does not work the way you propose.

If you believe in a deity, prove it to me and I'll join you. But you can't.

The stark difference is that I don't have to prove a deity doesn't exist. There is zero empirical evidence for such believe. The inability to prove a negative doesn't make your belief a provable fact.

If you have such a faith, I don't care since it doesn't impact my life one way or another. I accept facts that are provable. If you don't, so what? To each their own.

[trotsky]

294. Be careful with that one. He's not honest.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=143606

[PJMcK]

295. Good to know

Thanks!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

296. If yoiu don't believe in a diety, then YOU prove it.

No, my statement stands unchallenged. You have made a statement of faith, that God does not exist. You offer no evidence for this, you just want me to take it on faith.

[PJMcK]

297. Once again, that's not how science works

If you believe, good for you.

Proving a negative is not how rational and logical thought work.

But here's a question for you. How does a loving god who involves itself in the personal lives of its followers allow the tragedies of life to occur? A loving god allows a baby to contract cancer? A loving god allows a flood to destroy a village of its believers? The god of the Old Testament is an angry, jealous and petty god. The god of the New Testament allows its "son" to be tortured and brutally murdered. If that's a loving god, thanks but I'll pass.

ETA: You might as well ask me to prove that unicorns don't exist. Do you see how that works?

[LongtimeAZDem]

305. Then prove that you're not a serial killer. You can't.

The burden of proof is on the affirmative claim.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

315. And your quite affirmative claim is "There is no God"

You have not a scintilla of proof for your claim. It is AN ACT OF FAITH on your part.

You atheists don't like to admit this, because you like to claim that you are being reasonable and rational. Well, really, that is a pretense.

[uriel1972]

317. I do not claim 'There is no God'

Yet I do not believe in one... I am an Atheist.

[LongtimeAZDem]

318. I need not claim; "there is no god"; I simply state that I lack the belief in a god.

I don't affirm the negative; I simply posit that the affirmative claim of a god is unproven.

If proof of a deity's existence is forthcoming, I am opening to modifying my position, there is no faith involved whatsoever.

Sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

[edhopper]

323. I don't use the word belief

it allows the argument to slide toward "faith". Which is not involved.

I say I do not accept the existence of any god, based on the complete lack of evidence.

[LongtimeAZDem]

326. I usually just say "I don't beilve in god". If they're open to duscission, I can clarify,

and if they're not, it's not worth the time or effort.

[edhopper]

327. In a general conversation, yes

but if it is a discussion about God, I find I need to keep faith and belief out of it on my part.

[Mariana]

329. Edhopper has a point.

Theists often dishonestly try to pretend that "belief" and "faith" mean the same thing. If you avoid saying belief/disbelief/believe/disbelieve, you can sidestep that particular silly word game.

[LongtimeAZDem]

336. Sure, but once they do (outside of forum discussions like this) I just write them off. /nt

[edhopper]

322. Not how scientifi method works

there is no evidence for any gods. No need to offer evidence for nonexistence.
The statement is I do not accept the existence of any god based on the lack of any evidence for them. If you want to refute my claim of zero evidence, please proceed.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

[Major Nikon]

12. "There's probably no God. Stop worrying and enjoy your life"

[Voltaire2]

25. I fainted while clutching my pearls.

[Mariana]

47. See, that is every bit as tiring

as having entire television channels and radio stations with 24 hour programming, devoted to recruiting people into religion. It's every bit as tiring as those who gleefully threaten people with eternal torture because they don't believe and worship exactly as they do. It's every bit as tiring as having religious legislators constantly trying to do end-runs around the First Amendment in order to promote their religion. It's every bit as tiring as the targeting of students in public schools by giving them religious reading material or pressuring them to participate in prayers. It's every bit as tiring as the demonization of atheists as people with no morals and no sense of right and wrong.

I could go on (and on and on), but we all know the false equivalence that has been made here.

[Major Nikon]

59. Yeah, a relative whisper of dissent over a system of opposition by the megawatt

I can certainly see how some might find that offensive.

[MineralMan]

216. It's as tiring as a county government council paying six figures

to fight to be able to subject guests at their meetings to opening Christian prayers. They knew they'd lose in court, but spent the taxpayers' money anyhow in a futile court case.

That is a material cost to individual taxpayers in that county. On the other hand a atheist's banner on the side of a city bus represents someone helping to pay for public transit by buying an ad, thus saving money for the taxpayers. How awful that is in comparison to spending taxpayers' money fighting to break the 1st Amendment. Equivalence, for sure.

[Irishxs]

213. Agree

[NeoGreen]

21. Considering the source...

...

Lauren Sandler is the author of Righteous: Dispatches from the Evangelical Youth Movement. She has contributed journalism and opinion about culture, politics, and religion for many publications, including The Atlantic, The New Republic, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, and The New York Times.

The article is nothing more than a lament for the feeling you get when your priviledge is being eroded, i.e.:

When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression’

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-boeskool/when-youre-accustomed-to-privilege_b_9460662.html

As highlighted in this passage:

While Dawkins can see a political case to be made for the tolerant-humanist approach, he says that it is his writing—along with colleagues Hitchens and Sam Harris—and not the kinder, gentler voices of atheism, that is actually effecting change, and public relations be damned. Plus, he says, his work is hardly radical—it's only perceived as extremist because of the relative silence of people who question that faith is truth. “I think the illusion of stridency—you almost can’t use the word 'atheism' without preceding it with 'strident'—comes from the long period where it simply wasn't done to criticize religions.”

The only ones calling us "strident" are the religious.

Atheists aren't going door to door, they are not the ones advocating laws in deference to bronze age theology, they don't create target lists of who to kill:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Slepian
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#United_States
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)

[trotsky]

164. Yeah man but they like voice their opinions on the Internet.

And that's TOTALLY the flip side of the coin from religious fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings, killing thousands.

[NeoGreen]

165. Gosh, you're so right...how could anyone even think those aren't...

...equivalent?!

Oh and off.

[MineralMan]

2. There's no such proselytizing by non-believers.

Proselytizing is an attempt to get people to join something and become something. There's nothing to join for non-believers. There's no organization that represents any more than a tiny minority of them. There's no belief system, no doctrine, and not even any scripture for non-belief.

Here in the Religion Group, we discuss religion from all perspectives. Some people do not believe in any religious or spiritual principles. They are welcome to address such beliefs as they choose here.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding the reason this Group exists on DU.

[highplainsdem]

5. See reply 3. And proselytizing doesn't refer only to formal religions or organizations. It can

refer to a way of thinking (including non-belief in spirituality) or of living (vegetarianism, for instance).

[MineralMan]

9. Or proselytizing the Democratic Party?

Everyone has the right to promote whatever point of view they have. We all have the right to ignore anyone we wish who is promoting anything at all.

A free exchange of ideas is the fundamental right we all have. We can state our case, listen to others, or just stand silent and let the discussion go on without our participation.

You're suggesting that non-believers just shut up and let the others talk. No, thanks. I'll speak. They'll speak. Some will listen; some will ignore.

Freedom of expression is the goal. Why would you put roadblocks in its way?

Please think about what you're suggesting. It doesn't seem as though you have.

[highplainsdem]

14. No, I'm not suggesting non-believers shut up. I'm recommending empathy.

[Major Nikon]

17. "There's probably no God. Stop worrying and enjoy your life"

That was the example in the link you posted. Do you think it lacks empathy?

[MineralMan]

28. That's not proselytizing at all. It's just a gentle suggestion.

It's funny that it's the example used in that article by an evangelist for Christianity. If that's the best she can find, her argument is pretty weak sauce.

I wouldn't ever say, "There's probably no God." That's really a non-statement. I say, "I do not believe that any deities or other supernatural entities exist. There is no evidence whatsoever for them."

But, I don't say that, except in places where religious philosophies are discussed freely and openly by all sides, like in the Religion Group on DU.

[violetpastille]

63. Stop worrying and enjoy your life

Is a glib and cheerful marketing slogan. An ad.
It's meant to be empathy neutral.
For the young, beautiful, sane and healthy its affirming.
"You have everything you need to make it in a post-industrial society. Go with that!"

For someone addicted, homeless, diseased or in despair..it certainly doesn't strike an empathic note. "There's probably no God. Stop worrying and enjoy your life!" "Enjoy?"

Like a Prada ad for luxury leather goods - sometimes "enjoyment" is not your first priority.

I would not ever say that face to face to someone for whom trust in a higher power might be a much needed comfort.
I don't think you would either. It's not kind or helpful.

[Major Nikon]

75. Probably not a good idea to sell Prada to a migrant worker either

That doesn't mean Prada's ad campaigns are victimizing them.

[MineralMan]

77. Psst...Over Here...I Have Some GENUINE Pradha bags for sale.

Big savings. Here, look at this one. Only $25! For your wife? Your girlfriend?

[violetpastille]

78. We don't disagree.

It's advertising.

[Major Nikon]

85. True

Like all advertising you can probably imagine some way some person might be offended by it. If nothing else it's an uninvited intrusion into our daily lives.

The point here is that religion is advertised incredibly widely in as many ways as you can imagine and many you can't. It's virtually impossible to get through a day without being constantly bombarded by it. Not to mention our language, our culture, and our attitudes revolve around at the very least acceptance of it. So a couple of billboards go up that offer a dissenting viewpoint and some people absolutely lose their shit over it. I think that says far more than what the billboards themselves could ever say.

[violetpastille]

132. When I lived in Penang

It was a very strong stew of religion and superstition. It permeated everything. There were temples on every block, or a church or a mosque. Incense and calls to prayer. It was loud and banging and in your face.

But it wasn't offensive. There were plenty of things there that were, but that was one of the things I liked about the island.

Everyone was full blast with their religions down to ritual livestock slaughter on the side of the road, or burning prayers to the Kitchen God in front of my apartment.

All ideologies represented freely and fully.

It was no Utopia but it was a good example of how people can do own their thing and coexist. I know it is possible.

tldr;

Tolerance makes good street food and good business sense if no other thing.

America is changing.
We will have an openly atheist President someday soon.

[Major Nikon]

134. Possible doesn't mean likely

I'd be happy if we were just more like most of Western Europe where religion has been reduced to pretty much only a ceremonial role.

[violetpastille]

140. As Western Europe becomes multi-cultural

Last edited Mon Jan 14, 2019, 12:42 AM - Edit history (1)

I think it's likely that Islam will become the dominant religion in Western Europe in a generation or two.

Not the state-religion as it is in Malaysia, but I do believe religion will take on more than a ceremonial role in Western Europe going forward.

[muriel_volestrangler]

127. You think advising people to stop worrying about gods or damnation is "empathy neutral"?

It is, of course, empathetic. It is explicitly trying to help people feel better. It was, as you know, a reply to a bus ad that went to a website saying non-believers would burn in hell forever.

Yesterday I walked to work and saw not one, but two London buses with the question: "When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). It seems you wait ages for a bus with an unsettling Bible quote, then two come along at once.

The errant capital letters weren't the only disturbing thing about this (Faith Hill or Faith Evans?). There was also a web address on the ad, and when I visited the site, hoping for a straight answer to their rather pressing question, I received the following warning for anyone who doesn't "accept the word of Jesus on the cross": "You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels (demonic spirits)" (Matthew 25:41). Lots to look forward to, then.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion

[violetpastille]

133. I didn't know.

Thanks for the link, to be honest.

[LongtimeAZDem]

159. The amusing part is that the their website domain has expired

http://www.jesussaid.org/gods-wrath-against-sin.php/

[muriel_volestrangler]

183. Maybe they were raptured and no-one noticed ... (nt)

[trotsky]

223. Amazing how the original bus ad doesn't get anyone's ire here...

but the atheists' mild response to it is just outrageous and unacceptable.

Thank you for demonstrating the double standard.

[Pope George Ringo II]

228. Which, of course, is the problem in a nutshell.

It's fine when religionists buy ads on buses, but it's the end of civilization when an atheist does the same.

[trotsky]

232. Even when the atheist one says "hey, that guy is probably wrong so don't worry!"

EEEEEK FUCKING INSANE BATSHIT INSECURE ATHEIST FUNDIES JUST LIKE THEIR RELIGIOUS COUNTERPARTS!!!!!

Fuck this shit.

[Pope George Ringo II]

236. Persecution, don't you know.

May as well be burning them at the stake for not accepting evolutionary theory. Or beheading them for for not grasping that evolutionary theory doesn't cover biogenesis.

It's all the same.

[trotsky]

238. BOTH SIDES!!!!!111eleventyone

It's bullshit when the media does it, it's bullshit when someone does it on DU.

[MineralMan]

19. How are you recommending empathy?

I read your post, and I've read your arguments about replies to it.

Religious believers have every right to promote their religion. But, equally, I have every right to explain why I believe their religion, and all religions are wrong and a waste of time. I can't force anyone to listen to me, nor do I want to do so.

You posted a link to something one atheist, Richard Dawkins, is doing. He's pretty annoying at times, even to atheists like myself, who prefer to discuss such things in places that are designed for such discussions. Such a place is the Religion Group on DU.

Empathy is a two-way street. It also requires that people be aware that there are some places that are set aside for open, unrestricted discussions of issues like religion. You have come to one of those place with your complaint, and you are receiving replies that disagree with you.

There it is. As I said earlier, you might not have been aware of the nature of this group. I don't believe I've seen you post here before. So, I'm explaining that. I don't care what you or anyone else believes, but I don't share that belief, whatever it is. Here, I can openly say that and explain why I don't share that belief. And I will continue to do so.

[bitterross]

131. Empathy? No, no empathy. Sympathy perhaps.

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2019, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I have absolutely no desire to share their feelings, nor to encourage them by telling them it's okay to believe in the supernatural.

I do have sympathy, for them. I know they've been indoctrinated since birth and most cannot help themselves. It is quite challenging to overcome the indoctrination.

I would also suggest that the occasional billboard that encourages people to free themselves of the thought they are certain to burn in hellfire for all eternity is not a bad thing. Even if it does meet the strict definition of proselytize. Perhaps, if people spent more time on making this current life and world worth living in, rather than aspiring to a reward in an afterlife no one can prove exists, we'd be a lot better off. As it is, the people who believe we get our reward after death are in charge and they're wreaking havoc.


I know I saw several billboards on the highway today with messages about how there is a God (the Christian one) and Jesus died for my sins. It's about time people had another opinion available.

[Major Nikon]

16. Or proselytizing for civil rights

[MineralMan]

20. Oh, the horror! Racists just hate that, don't they?

[Major Nikon]

15. Sure, and there's lots of other words that can literally refer to the same thing

Advertising

Promoting

Advocating

Encouraging

Publicizing

Endorsing

So why pick a word that has almost exclusively a religious connotation? Obviously the reason is to draw an equivalency. The problem with this is one of those two things enjoys social privilege while the other does not.

[highplainsdem]

23. I used the word for the same reason the writer of this Daily Beast article

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-atheist-recruiting-machine

uses words like "proselytize" and "evangelize" to describe how some atheists try to convert others to their belief system. It describes a tone, a zeal, similar to religious proselytizing:

But not all atheists are comfortable preaching the gospel of the nonbeliever. After all, the New York advertising effort could be seen as something most atheists consider repugnant: evangelizing. Dawkins admits to his own zealotry in his fight against what many atheists call irrationalism in his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, in which he compares creationists to Holocaust deniers. “I think it’s reasonable to carry on with a certain amount of zeal when there's evidence that people out there still don't get it,” he says.

But should atheists proselytize with a passion akin to the loudest bible thumpers? It’s a question that has divided the atheist community into two schools of thought. And ironically, it’s a split that somewhat resembles the one among born-again Christians, between those who advocate a fire-and-brimstone approach (“Accept Jesus or burn in hell”) and those who want to bring newcomers into the fold with a gentler message that sells a warmer (and, in the case of younger Christians, cooler) brand of Christianity. For some atheists, the very idea of aggressively spreading the word of no-God is practically sinful.

As that article makes clear, not all atheists proselytize.

And I wasn't suggesting they do.

[Major Nikon]

30. I'm not doubting that

I'm pretty sure the reason was the same in both cases, but the language used is no less duplicitous. Using the word "evangelize" is subliterate at best and at worst just straight out nutty.

It would be utterly ridiculous to suggest all atheists proselytize and neither am I suggesting that's your argument.

[Voltaire2]

27. So basically we are ok if we just shut up.

You do understand, don’t you, that your religious bullshit is pushed in our faces all over the place, right?

But a sign that says “There’s probably no God. Stop worrying and enjoy your life”, that’s just too much.

[Siwsan]

6. I'm glad I found my own path, years ago. However, I still glean from both sides.

I'm never above considering and learning.

There are some belief systems that I find mind boggling, but as long as they don't infringe on my life, I leave it to the believers. There are some belief systems that DO try their best to infringe on my life, in a negative way, and I'll resist them with every fiber of my being. And those belief systems that have less to do with spirituality and 'religion' and more to do with control - often for financial gain - those aren't religions. They are cults. And, of course, let me add that is IMHO.

I've questioned others for the rationale behind their beliefs, and listened with respect. Ridiculing anyone for their beliefs, or lack there of, is about the most non-productive way of going about things. If they find comfort in their non-intrusive beliefs, then I wish them well. All I ask is an equal amount of respect for my beliefs.

[highplainsdem]

10. +1,000,000

[MineralMan]

22. We're glad you did, too.

I also found my own path years ago when I became an atheist. Would you like to hear about my path? Just stick around the Religion Group. We talk about that stuff all the time. That's why the group exists. I don't talk about it in GD. Just here.

[Siwsan]

31. I have read some of your posts!

Like I said, I'm a gleaner.

[Major Nikon]

32. I didn't have to find or choose a path

I've never at any point in my life had any form of religious belief. I just never changed from the default condition.

[MineralMan]

34. I did have religious beliefs, as a youngster. But, when I became an adult, I started reasoning

like an adult and threw it all off very quickly. I don't expect children, or even teens, to apply logic to things. But, adults? I do expect logical thinking from adults. I'm often disappointed in that expectation, though.

[highplainsdem]

52. So you're saying that anyone with religious beliefs is illogical, childish, a disappointment to you?

Would that include, for instance, Biden and Obama?

Or any of the other Democratic leaders we admire who make no secret of their own religious faith?

[MineralMan]

53. No. You're the one saying that I'm saying that.

Please don't speak for me. That's rude.

[highplainsdem]

56. You said very clearly that you threw off religious beliefs when you became an adult and could think

logically.. You made it clear you expect similar logic of other adults, or you'll be disappointed in them. How did I misunderstand you?

[MineralMan]

58. ..

[highplainsdem]

65. ???? Not sure what you mean by that. But I wish you understood why your comments that adults who

are logical will throw off any religious beliefs look condescending, including to many people who do not in any way deserve such condescension.

[guillaumeb]

200. A frequent assertion.

That theism is childish, and belief demonstrates a lack of logical ability.

And the admonition to "think about what you are saying", with the implication that the person is not.

[uriel1972]

319. A theist may be childish or they may not...

Just like Atheists

However, to believe that believing that something for which there is no evidence is actually true... well that leads me to doubt their logical faculties.

Sorry about that, it's just the way I am.

[guillaumeb]

201. The poster is not the only one.

The pattern is evident because it is so frequent.

[Mariana]

67. That is not what he said.

You seem to be trying very hard to be offended.

[MineralMan]

69. Thanks. I reread the post to which that was the reply.

I said nothing of the sort in it. Adults are often illogical, and that's disappointing. That's what I said. I don't understand why people add words to what I write. It's odd, but it sure is common.

[highplainsdem]

70. So you're still saying that it's illogical to hold any religious belief, and you're disappointed in

those who are illogical that way.

[MineralMan]

72. No. I said exactly what I meant. You are adding words to what I said.

Try rereading the original thing I said, but this time for understanding.

Don't add your own words into my statements, and then tell me what I said. I know exactly what I said, and it was exactly what I intended to say.

Now, for your information, I only respond in subthreads to a certain level. Beyond that, I simply answer replies with this:

..

[highplainsdem]

79. Your statement made it clear that you believe reasoning, logical adults should throw off religious

beliefs, though you apparently make exceptions for children and teens since you don't expect them to be logical enough to dump their religious beliefs. And you find it disappointing when adults aren't logical in the way you define logical.

I'm just pointing out that the vast group of people who hold religious views includes highly respected Democratic leaders.

Not just Jerry Falwell, Jr., and similar hypocrites.

If your statement did contain an exception for adults who hold religious views that you don't consider illogical and disappointing, please show me where it was.

[MineralMan]

80. ..

[Dream Girl]

39. Is atheism a religion? Didn't know that.

[MineralMan]

40. Nope. It can't be.

So, it isn't.

Atheism gives you free time on days of worship, besides. That's one of its benefits. There's no tedious Bible study or prayer time, either. Really, one doesn't have to do anything at all about not believing in deities.

[Dream Girl]

61. You have a narrow view of religion. I believe in a higher power and I'm relaxing in bed this

Bright Sunday morning. No Bible study or worship for me. I do meditate though. I don’t worship Mr. Science either. I believe that God is unknowable to us while we are in human form. I believe we have a should and that soul is God’s presence in us. Even as a child Christianity made absolutely no sense to me and for most of my 20s, I considered myself an “atheist”. But I came to the realization/belief that atheism was not tenable for me either. I fall into the “spiritual” but not religious” camp. A few hundred years of scientific theory does not explain consciousness, human existence or the meaning of life. We humans haven’t been around very long and we certainly don’t know all there is to know. In some ways I think of atheism as the height of human arrogance. Our understanding is miniscule. Mr. Science doesn’t even understand human consciousness.

[MineralMan]

64. I have my own personal view of religion.

I don't believe it. You have your own personal view. OK. You've told me something about yours. If you stick around in the Religion Group, you'll read about mine. That's what this group is for.

[highplainsdem]

68. My views are fairly similar to yours. I went from a childhood in a major religion to agnostic,

probably bordering on atheist, but I don't believe science has all the answers yet, either. I'm old enough to remember when the benefits of meditation were regarded as superstitious nonsense by many atheists. I studied various world religions enough to see that they tended to start with mystical experiences, which tend to be universal, and then all too often that original perception was subverted by authoritarians making something rigid and repressive of it. I agree that we're a long way from understanding human consciousness. And the older I get, the more I hear of experiences that make me believe there is an afterlife, though not the heaven/hell scenario some religions preach. And I've heard some of those stories from hospice workers. Science can't explain them.

[Voltaire2]

135. "Mr. Science"? Lulzd.

The enlightenment and the scientific revolution are about a process of building an empirical knowledge base of reality for civilization. It indeed cannot tell you what the meaning of life is, as it does not provide revealed truths but instead only evidence based observational theories about the nature of reality. All of which are tentative and can be revised by new observations.

It is an open question if “science” can explain consciousness.

Equating science with religion is pretty much nonsense.

[Major Nikon]

144. Not really the place of science to explain metaphysical abstract concepts

Some animals have metacognition and the same physical neural networks that humans use for self awareness. That part is well covered by science. If someone wants to attach hocus pocus to consciousness, then they should probably look to religion or some other creed that departs from reality.

The meaning of life in almost all instances is to recreate itself. If someone wants a different answer they should probably look to religion or some other creed that departs from reality.

[cornball 24]

139. Bingo! Thank you for your wisdom so beautifully stated.

[PassingFair]

340. Atheism is about acceptance.

Really, you have got it exactly wrong.

"Believing" in things for which there is no evidence is the height of human arrogance.
Believing that intercessory prayers sway some divine power to fulfill your wishes, however altruistic or venal they may be, is the height of human arrogance.

[highplainsdem]

62. Not a religion, but a belief system.

[MineralMan]

66. Not even a system.

It's simply non-belief. There's no system required.

[Major Nikon]

7. Whatabout those who proselytize against the proselytizers who proselytize against the proselytizers?

Kind of a self-defeating argument, don't you think?

[Duppers]

11. Lost me.

[LakeArenal]

13. I don't like being "explained" to anyone.

I don’t like having someone “explain” themselves to me.

[keithbvadu2]

18. Especially the newly converted whether from religious to non-religious or non-r to religious.

Especially the newly converted whether from religious to non-religious or non-r to religious.

When folks convert, their new belief system (non-belief is a belief) has to decry their old ways to reinforce that they made the right decision.

Religion, drugs, tobacco, alcohol, politics, personal bad habits, whatever.

[Major Nikon]

24. Non-belief isn't a belief

Atheism isn't a belief system.

[keithbvadu2]

33. Those who believe there is no God have a belief system.

Those who believe there is no God have a belief system.

[Major Nikon]

37. I believe I'll have another beer

Ergo I have a belief system. Um, no. That's not what a "belief system" means. At a minimum a belief system has some form of philosophy and more generally includes doctrine and dogma. Just believing something to be true implies none of those things.

Meanwhile atheism doesn't require a belief that there is is no god, only a lack of belief in one or more deities. You were born an atheist. That is the default condition. You did not have a belief system.

[keithbvadu2]

44. "and more generally includes" - meaning it does not have to include

"and more generally includes" - meaning it does not have to include

I'll go with some of the way you say it.

[Major Nikon]

54. "belief system" requires a set of beliefs at a minimum

You mentioned one thing that isn't even required to begin with, and conveniently ignored there is no philosophy attached to atheism.

[MineralMan]

42. Those who don't believe there is any such thing as deities, though,

have no belief system. None is required. That's the case with most atheists. Atheism is not a belief system. It's just non-belief. It's really easy, and takes up none of your time, unless you like discussing religions, etc. Then you can talk about not believing as much as you please.

But, do show me your deity by having it appear for my examination, and I'll take it under consideration.

[keithbvadu2]

49. As MJ said: "You were born an atheist. That is the default condition. You did not have a belief syst

As MJ said: "You were born an atheist. That is the default condition. You did not have a belief system."

When you become old enough to decide to be an atheist, you have chosen to believe something.

You believe in atheism enough to argue about it.

[MineralMan]

51. You're funny...

I also believed in Santa Claus until I was 5 years old. I stopped believing then.

I've already had that discussion, though, so I won't bother with it again...

Good luck to you.

[Mariana]

71. How could someone decide to be an atheist?

Hypothetically, could you decide to believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real? Even if you really really really wanted it to exist, because you just love the idea of an afterlife with beer volcanoes, could you will yourself into believing it?

There isn't any decision to be made. Do you believe any deities exist? If the answer isn't Yes, you're an atheist.

[keithbvadu2]

73. " If the answer isn't Yes", (or it is), you have decided.

" If the answer isn't Yes", (or it is), you have decided.

[Mariana]

83. Does this reasoning apply to everything one believes or disbelieves?

Or, does it only apply to the question of deities? For example, did you decide to disbelieve that 2 + 2 = 5?

I notice you didn't answer my question. Could you decide to believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real?

[keithbvadu2]

84. Your rhetorical questions

Your rhetorical questions

Anyone can decide to believe whatever they want.

They don't need proof.

[Mariana]

93. You really should speak for yourself.

I can't decide to believe something is real, if I don't believe it's real.

Evidence could cause me to believe something I previously disbelieved, but that wouldn't be voluntary, either. At times, evidence has caused me to believe things I really did not want to believe.

[keithbvadu2]

95. "if I don't believe it's real. "

Then you believe it is not real.
Or you believe that you cannot know either way.

In any case, you believe something.

[Major Nikon]

117. Or they can reject belief without believing anything

Those that mess up the "does god exist" question "believe" there are only two possible outcomes when someone can simply refuse to answer the question at all and many do exactly that.

[keithbvadu2]

118. What other outcomes are there?

What other outcomes are there?

[Major Nikon]

119. I have already told you and prominently put it in the subject line

I have already told you and prominently put it in the subject line

[keithbvadu2]

121. Link?

[Major Nikon]

124. Link

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304082

[keithbvadu2]

125. So you didn't post it after all. OK

[Major Nikon]

128. Link?

[Major Nikon]

113. False dilemma

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[marylandblue]

126. Kids seem to believe all sorts of things automatically

Seems they start off believing made-up stuff and then learn to drop beliefs that aren't reinforced by adults. When I was little, I believed there were monsters in the basement. Nobody told me there were monsters, in fact they always told me there weren't. Still, I just believed it until I either believed the amonsterism of adults or figured it out myself. I saw the same process play out in my own kid and in other people's kids.

On the other hand, the adults around me did believe in God. So coming to my own conclusion on that took amlot longer.


So while logically, atheism may be the default, developmentally we seem primed to believe first and only question those beliefs later.

[Mariana]

138. I agree we can decide to question beliefs and examine evidence.

Plenty of people refuse to do either. Just look at how Republicans deny climate change is happening. They don't want to hear about the evidence, and they won't consider the possibility that they may be wrong. That's a decision. The belief or disbelief itself isn't something we decide.

It's a fine point, I know, but I'm trying to be precise. It's possible that it is different for different people. For example, maybe keithbvadu2 really can will himself into believing the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, if he wants to believe it badly enough. I can't do that.

[Major Nikon]

81. Did you choose not to believe in leprechauns?

How about the Loch Ness monster?

Purple people eaters?

Russell's teapot?

How about an infinite number of other imagined things?

[keithbvadu2]

82. other imagined things?

Like going to the moon?
Or ships under the sea?

Who is Russell?

[NeoGreen]

86. Bertrand Russell...

...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

and his teapot analogy...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.

Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and has had influence in various fields and media.

[keithbvadu2]

122. Thanks

[Major Nikon]

87. Do you doubt anyone can come up with an infinite number of not real things?

Or are you just conflating real things to make some kind of point? If it's the later I have no idea what you're trying to say. If it's the former I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

[keithbvadu2]

97. "conflating real things"

Real things that do not prove your point.

[Major Nikon]

100. Nor did I mention them. You did.

I saw in another post you are trying to conflate belief in things that have objective evidence to those that don't. If you really want to go there, be my guest. You won't be the first to make that day trip from reason.

[keithbvadu2]

101. Link?

[Major Nikon]

102. Really?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304026

[keithbvadu2]

103. Funny that they were not real things at the time.

[Major Nikon]

106. Yes, well evidence does that for ya

Meanwhile I still have no idea what you are going on about and how it's relevant to anything I said.

[keithbvadu2]

109. OK

[Mariana]

89. You seem to be saying you disbelieve that people went to the moon

and that submarines exist. I suspect that isn't what you're trying to say.

In 1968, it was perfectly rational to disbelieve that anyone had gone to the moon. Today, such disbelief is irrational. What is the difference?

[keithbvadu2]

94. that anyone 'could go' to the moon

The difference is 'belief'.

Folks have believed both sides in the moon example.

[Mariana]

99. There "could be" a god.

I don't believe there are any, but there could be. I'm still an atheist.

[keithbvadu2]

105. You believe that there could be.

You believe that there could be.

You have a belief system, flexible as it is.

[Mariana]

108. Why don't you answer any of my questions? nt.

[keithbvadu2]

111. Your post 99 was not a question

I have answered some of your questions.

[keithbvadu2]

116. "There "could be" a god."

Then you believe "There "could be" a god."

You believe something.

[Major Nikon]

104. Sure, there's also people who think the earth is flat

Meanwhile everyone else is talking about unfalsifiable claims while you are going off on a tangent (pardon the pun).

[keithbvadu2]

107. "unfalsifiable claims"

That God may or may not exist.

Sure! Sure!

[Major Nikon]

110. Neither one of those is an unfalsifiable claim

So no, not sure. YMMV.

[keithbvadu2]

112. That was my point. Sorry you missed it.

[Major Nikon]

114. I've been telling you I've been missing your point all along

It would help to actually know what it is.

[tonedevil]

136. You wrote...

When you become old enough to decide to be an atheist, you have chosen to believe something.

I have heard of many gods, but have never been presented with evidence of them existing anywhere other than imagination. The axiom the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence comes into play here. A negative can never be proven so I don't feel a need to attempt the impossible. That said, in the same way I don't believe the world travels on the back of turtle I also don't believe it was created in 6 days by "God". If evidence were presented that seemed credible my mind could change, but that wouldn't exactly be belief at least not belief based on faith which is what I think is under discussion here.
I don't see the absence of belief being the same as a religious belief so I am wondering what you think I decided to believe in?

[keithbvadu2]

137. If you believe you are an atheist, you believe something.

If you believe you are an atheist, you believe something.

[MarvinGardens]

141. Well sure.

But if you put it that way, everyone believes something. I believe I exist. I believe something.

[tonedevil]

152. What makes you think I belive...

I'm an atheist? As far as I know the usual definition of atheist fits how I think that doesn't constitute a belief.

[LongtimeAZDem]

129. Do you understand the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty"?

Juries don't find people "innocent", but, if the prosecution fails to prove their case, they find "not guilty". This makes no statement about whether the person actually committed the charged offense; it simply means that the case against them was unsupported.

Atheism is the same thing, when we say "no god", we are saying "while it is impossible to disprove the existence of an ephemeral entity, the evidence proffered thus far is so lacking as to render a decision against the affirmative claim".

But it's really a pain saying that every time, especially since it shouldn't have to be explained.

[Mariana]

153. It shouldn't have to be explained more than once, at any rate.

Nevertheless, people who aren't atheists will insist upon trying to "correct" us, even after it has been explained to them.

[uriel1972]

316. That may be true...

But I do not have any evidence to believe there is a God so I do not believe there is a God. I do not 'Believe there is NO God', I don't know for sure, but my money is not on the 'Second Coming' arriving soon or at all.

[Snackshack]

74. Agreed

“Atheism is not a philosophy - it is not even a view of the world. It is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”

Sam Harris.

[Major Nikon]

76. There will always be a label for those on the outside looking in

That's how privilege works.

[MineralMan]

92. We could make up words: :Anelvisist" or "Analienist"

English is great that way. You can make your own words that are immediately understood sometimes, using prefixes and suffixes that are commonly recognized. A- and An- are standard prefixes in English.

[uriel1972]

320. oooh oooh

how about alogical?

*runs away*

[highplainsdem]

26. Agree. I've seen that in my family, with both outspoken atheists and outspoken evangelicals who've

switched belief systems.

[zipplewrath]

184. The worst

Someone who has recently quit, or taken up something that they perceive to be superior in some way can be hard to be around. That enthusiastic advocacy can wear quickly.

[Iggo]

29. I think I'll go engage in my hobby of Not Collecting Stamps.

And after that I'll participate in my favorite sport of Not Playing Sports.

What I'm getting at is this: Not participating in religion is not a religion. Declining to believe is not belief.

[MineralMan]

35. Enjoy your hobbies!

[Iggo]

36. .

[MineralMan]

38. The nice thing about hobbies like that is that

they don't take up much of your time. After several years, I finally took up the hobby of not fishing. I sold my boat and my fishing tackle to support my new hobby, and discovered that I had lots of time available for not fishing.

[Iggo]

43. And they're the easiest hobbies to master.

In fact, I'm probably a Grand Master of Not Playing Football.

[MineralMan]

45. Yes, indeed.

It's easy to be an expert at nothing.

[keithbvadu2]

57. And we don't have to dust the trophies

[zipplewrath]

199. But deciding the believer

But deciding that the believer is wrong, is a belief.

[Iggo]

224. I make no claim. The believer makes the claim.

If their evidence is lacking, their claim can be disregarded.

That's not a belief system.

[zipplewrath]

225. As long as there is no counter claim

The claim "there is no god" is as unsubstantiated as "there is a god".

(Although in a different part of the thread, and interesting expression would be "there is no known god".)

[Pope George Ringo II]

233. I don't have a problem saying that some deity of some sort somewhere may exist.

After all, there's no reason whatsoever to think so, but we're back to Russell's Teapot.

However, there are quite simply thousands of gods which are clearly fiction. I dare say we'd be in agreement on the vast majority of an itemized list.

[zipplewrath]

235. Well, we would

In my way of thinking they're all "fiction" in the sense that no one really has the capacity to "know" an infinite being. They are all constructs in an attempt to understand to the greatest extent possible. But since most people have a greater capacity to understand quantum mechanics, than they do an infinite being, the extent that their construct approximates reality is going to be very small. As such, the difference between what they describe, and fiction, is going to be difficult to discern.

[Pope George Ringo II]

240. I'd suggest that if quantum mechanics were easier for most, they'd gravitate that way.

The numbers suggest that "I don't understand, therefore magic" is more popular than "I don't understand, so more mind-bending math."

Even I will admit that "magic" is easier than math on that level, but the math is honest.

[zipplewrath]

261. Magical thinking is quite common

Not just in religion either. Sports is full of superstition. Much of the "blue light" and "aura" crowd dabbles in it as well. Understanding is hard and takes effort. Blaming/crediting magic is much easier. And ya gotta admit, the concept of "read this one book and you'll understand everything" is probably an attractive idea as well.

[Pope George Ringo II]

263. I've watched my share of postgame interviews.

Religion probably ought to be counted in that superstition. Although I don't think I'd go so far as to include beards, lucky socks, and so forth under "religion."

That whole "read this one book and understand everything" is a big part of my problem with religion. It really interferes with problem solving.

[zipplewrath]

271. Belief in "momentum"

There is a myth that seems to be believed by every color announcer which is that one shot, one catch, on hit creates some sort of momentum that suddenly causes a player or team to perform better. It's been studied over and over and no one can find any statistical evidence of any such phenomenon. None the less it is basically taken as "gospel" (excuse the pun) anyway.

[Pope George Ringo II]

272. I blame the announcers for that one.

"What they don't want after that big play, Bob, is a turnover." No kidding, genius. When would the turnover have been a good idea?

[Iggo]

253. No counterclaim needs to be made.

Although at times I do claim that it appears there is no god. (No god is apparent.)

But I'm always open to someone, anyone, showing that there is one.

Always.

[ADX]

41. I agree 100%...

...Some atheists are every bit as patronizing, insufferable and condescending as some believers are when it comes to arguing their supposed "point".

[Iggo]

46. But Mama, that's where the fun is.

[ADX]

48. Yeah, you've got a point there...

[highplainsdem]

60. Thank you for understanding what I was saying.

[ADX]

120. Thank you for saying what I was understanding...

[wasupaloopa]

50. It is not tiring to me. That is because I am not religious. You are I suppose so you do not want

to here it.

On it's face atheists preaching atheism is not tiring. You have to add being religious.

[Mariana]

98. The poster has given one extremely weak example

of atheists preaching atheism - a sign on a bus that says, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." That's what the poster considers to be "just as tiring" as the countless ways in which religious people try to recruit.

[highplainsdem]

123. I'm not religious. I haven't belonged to any religion since my teens. But I know people who are

very religious, and people who are very convinced that atheism is the only correct view, and I do think both sides can be just as likely to shut down any real discussion with overzealousness and self-righteousness when they're up on their soapboxes.

I don't like seeing atheists criticized as amoral or as destined for hell, and I don't like seeing people who are religious dismissed with condescension as "illogical."

[wasupaloopa]

273. If someone believed in a superstition could

you say that you find the superstition illogical?

To me religion is a superstition. I don’t get the idea that I should respect the religion and those who believe it. I think the reason people “respect” a person’s religion is because believers are in the majority.

[Freelancer]

55. There are just different types of people where religion is concerned - who wudda thunk it?

The falsehoods and contradictions that are sprinkled across the foundation stones of religion are glaring to some. But, to others, they're no problem. The no-problem religious types would really like it if the ones that see the cracks could find their way to their own outlook. To them, it's so easy. They seem to think the ones that see the problems with religion have been led astray, instead of seeing them as simply another type of person than themselves.

[Bretton Garcia]

88. Liberalism by definition it seems at first, can't be dogmatic or militant.

But? This makes it too soft in the face of organized antagonism, armies.

It seems good to allow all opinions. But what happens when your liberal buddies are suddenly attacked by a conservative Nazi army. that wants to make you illegal, or jail or kill you, with no pleas allowed?.

There are times when being liberally tolerant of many or all views, is good. But when facing the Nazi army in WW II, should we have laid down our weapons. and been tolerant of Nazis?

For this reason, many became less liberal, and more firmly leftist. At least as a temporary response to organized right wing Republican opposition to liberalism.

[demosincebirth]

90. Six and a half billion people on this planet, now, beleive in a Supreme Being, a Higher Power or a

life after death ever since our ancestors first walked upright

[Bretton Garcia]

115. And that majority likes to crush the atheist minority.

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2019, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Which is not good.

De Tocqueville called such things the "tyranny of the majority.". And it was because of that, that universal and minority rights were established.

[demosincebirth]

143. Why does something you don't believe in bother you so much?

I’m Catholic and I don’t try to impose my views on anyone. People believe what they wanna believe. It’s their right

[Major Nikon]

146. And yet many Catholics do impose their views on others

You have the RCC and many other Catholic organizations actively lobbying against various human and civil rights all over the world.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of atheists could care less what someone else believes until it starts to impact them personally or people they care about. As a Catholic you are part of the Christian majority and as such you have religious privilege that insulates you from what others experience who have no such privilege. In other words, you don't get bothered as much.

[demosincebirth]

151. You paint with a wide brush. Old saying, "point a

Finger, you have three pointing back at you.

[Mariana]

155. I wonder, would you say that to a member

of any other minority group who pointed out that the majority enjoy a position of privilege?

Many Catholics do seek impose their views on others. The RCC and many other Catholic organizations do actively lobby against various human and civil rights all over the world. Do you deny that these things are true?

[demosincebirth]

280. I have a very large family, 99% Catholic, three gay and all liberal, but not in all sense.

I have conservative views on a few issues. I don't have time to dispute all of the issues concerning you. I believe this is a sample of the majority of Catholics in this country. I have no control over the Hierarchy of the church and what they lobby for, right or wrong, in your eyes. These are my personal views as a life-long Catholic and 80 year old Democrat.

[Mariana]

284. The majority of Catholics in this country voted for Trump in 2016.

Does your family represent that majority of Catholics?

[Major Nikon]

162. Had I said all Catholics, you might have something

As it is it looks a lot like you're in denial.

[Mariana]

154. Religion is very real, and it has an effect on all our lives.

That is why we discuss it.

[Eko]

130. What makes you say that?

In what way do you know they have done so "ever since our ancestors first walked upright"??

[demosincebirth]

142. You know what I mean

[Major Nikon]

145. It sounds like what you mean is religion has been around since humans have

There's really no way to know that, but the earliest evidence of anything which can be remotely construed as religious in nature doesn't appear until humans had been walking upright for about 250 millennia or roughly 5 times longer than we have for any such evidence until today.

One thing we do know is that we don't have any real evidence of what we know of as religion until humans made the transition from hunting and gathering to agrarian societies. This suggests religion was invented or at least developed as a means of controlling larger collections of humans when they began to gather in much larger numbers.

[marylandblue]

175. Depends on what you mean by religion

If you mean organized religion, then you might by be right, since there was very little organized anything prior to agriculture. But if you count myths, animism, and shamanism as religions practiced in hunter-gatherer societies, then it's likely that the earliest homo-sapiens did have religion. And it is also likely it was an early form of social control or for social cohesion since all members of the tribe were expected to believe the myths and engage in the group rituals.

[Major Nikon]

180. The earliest evidence is burial rituals

Whether or not this constitutes religion or not is debatable. Early humans would have undoubtedly noticed the effects of genetic traits and probably attached some form of ancestor worship to it.

Early civilizations were able to survive and prosper because they had methods of collectivism. Organized religion is an easy way to manage collectivism and remained the dominate method for doing so up until the Age of Enlightenment.

[marylandblue]

187. Yes burial rituals, but also modern hunter gatherer societies provide evidence

All the ones we have contacted since the Age of Exploration began had mythologies and rituals. So it's likely that our early ancestors living the same lifestyle had them too. It's possible the earliest versions were ancestor worship, since that too seems to exist around the world.

[demosincebirth]

281. I never mentioned religion

[Major Nikon]

282. Whatever you want to call it

But the evidence for your assertion is still missing.

[Eko]

148. Yes I do.

You meant that religion has been with humanity for a very long time. 2 things about that, they have been different religions and there have been atheists the whole time also so your point is moot, very moot.

[trotsky]

163. Pretty clear what you mean.

Tyranny of the majority. "STFU, atheists. You're stupid and wrong."

Remember that 90% of the people in this country supported George W. Bush after 9/11.

A majority of people CAN be wrong.

[c-rational]

96. Interesting post, and I appreeciate what I believe are your intentios. Regarding the difference

between spirituality and religion, I do not believe most people realize that having any belief system, a set of thoughts that you regard as the absolute truth, does not make you spiritual, no matter what those beliefs. I find any thoughts get in the way of true spirituality. Get beyond thoughts and you will not find an argument with anyone or anything. It is our thoughts and beliefs that limit us, and lead to division.

[littlemissmartypants]

147. Maybe they are just talking to themselves in a form of self persuasion.

Last edited Mon Jan 14, 2019, 12:56 AM - Edit history (1)

Some people love nothing more than the sound of their own voices. It may be the only thing keeping them grounded in some semblance of reality, proselytizing.
Which would also suggest that empathy for themselves is really what they are missing. You're not going to be empathetic with anyone if you can't be humble.

[Eko]

149. You are right.

We should get a big book and create a day where all the atheists come together so we can hear ourselves pat each other on the back for reinforcing what the book says. We should decide that that book creates reality and stick with it for thousands of years no matter what science finds out. We should also, out of humbleness of course, create laws based on this book and act outraged when people don't like it. And of course once again out of humbleness decide that what you are missing is empathy for yourself. In all humbleness of course.

[littlemissmartypants]

150. I am not sure what your point is but my reference does not

Single out the atheists or any other "way." It can all become an echo chamber at a certain point. I am best left to my own beliefs. As I suspect you are. I certainly don't follow a cookie cutter approach.

My religious beliefs are very fluid and amalgamated. I can't say that I will be proselytizing on that any time soon. I doubt that I would have much luck. It's too much like taking prisoners not so much soul saving. A lot of what passes for soul saving is really just for show and superficial, anyway. I may be too much of an individualist.

Religious beliefs are like the decision to terminate a pregnancy. The decision one makes is really no one's business and should be made between the person and the pertinent "higher power" which for an atheist could be no one or the doctor, for a christian, maybe Jesus maybe, Mary.

Additionally, religion aside, the world would be better, in my opinion, if we all practiced a little more humility and took more time to treat each other with more dignity and respect. Not just to be "more like Jesus," but just because we are all in the same boat, planet earth, and none of us are getting out alive. But that's just me and I don't need to be right.

[Eko]

156. My point is that out of "humbleness"

you have decided that some people lack empathy, doesn't sound like humbleness or empathy from you at all. Actually it sounds very judgemental.

[littlemissmartypants]

157. Twisted. How are being humble and empathetic counterintuitive?

I thought we were actually having a discussion. It appears you might be judging me or possibly trying to insult me. I don't know what you're doing.

[Eko]

158. Judging you?

No, I wouldn't do that. "Which would also suggest that empathy for themselves is really what they are missing. You're not going to be empathetic with anyone if you can't be humble." You on the other hand.

[littlemissmartypants]

161. I guess some people will just never get it.

[Mariana]

169. You said that in humbleness, right?

[Eko]

244. With empathy also.

[littlemissmartypants]

270. Totally.

[Act_of_Reparation]

160. #notallwhitepeople?

A long road to nowhere, Mr. Russert.

[highplainsdem]

168. ?????????????????

[Act_of_Reparation]

170. Confused?

[highplainsdem]

172. No, I post question marks as an emoji for certainty.

[Act_of_Reparation]

173. Good.

Then I don't have to go on at length about the privileged crap you posted. I think I'll make a sandwich.

[highplainsdem]

174. Making a sandwich will add just about as much to this discussion as a deliberately cryptic remark.

[Act_of_Reparation]

176. I will assure you everyone who needs to know what it means knows what it means.

And those who don't know what it means aren't interested in having a discussion anyway.

Turkey or ham?

[highplainsdem]

178. Oh, it's a forum in-joke for people who agree with you. How helpful to any discussion in a public

forum that does sometimes get newcomers.

[Act_of_Reparation]

188. You're half right.

It's an in-joke, but agreement has little to do with it. It's for people who have already had this "discussion" half a billion times.

[MarvinGardens]

166. I think I get where you are coming from.

I am a deist who believes that God does not intervene in our lives in any direct way, and I believe that it is highly likely that we cease to exist at death. I also believe that human society has reached the point in our evolution that religion is holding us back more than it helps us. So in terms of lifestyle, I might as well be an atheist or agnostic.

That being said, I often self-censor my beliefs when I am around someone who is casually discussing religion, and it is obvious that they are a religious believer. I do not usually go into detail about my personal beliefs, am not bothered by being invited to church (I may even show up if the service isn't too early), and am fine to join in saying grace before dinner. If someone wants to proselytize, they may find out what I really think, but even then I may self-censor if I think they can't handle it. Although I believe that in the aggregate, we'll all be better off if we can cast off religious dogma, this casting off needs to be completely voluntary and only when people are ready for it. When it comes down to an individual who seems like a good person who is sincere in their religious beliefs, I think "maybe they need this belief system more than they need to know what I think. Maybe they need it to get through the rough spots in their life."

I also agree with those on this thread who have said you have to expect to hear a diversity of ideas here in the Religion group, including from atheists and agnostics. If ever there was a place to "proselytize", this is it.

[trotsky]

167. Time to dust off this old classic again...

https://xkcd.com/774/

[highplainsdem]

171. That old classic doesn't apply to my OP, since I made it very clear I wasn't

talking about atheists in general, but a type of strident proselytizing that is as tiring as the proselytizing of evangelicals.

And it's a type of proselytizing that makes discussion all but impossible when it starts with condescension and the assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid, or at the least "illogical."

I know that because I went through an agnostic/atheist phase after leaving the church my family belonged to, and during that phase I could be condescending and smug toward people with religious views.

I was very self-righteous about being that way, because, after all, I was just being logical.

And since I knew better than anyone who mistakenly believed in a god or higher power, it was therefore my responsibility to enlighten them about their poor illogical ignorance.

Especially since I was still reacting to having been raised in a faith I had turned away from, and it bolstered my self-confidence to preach atheism to others.

It took me a while to realize how off-putting that attitude was, and how silly I looked being condescending toward people who were just as bright as I was, and in many cases brighter.

Btw, I'm aware that there's plenty of debate among atheists about positive versus negative/soft atheism, and whether pushing atheist beliefs is a good way to convince someone else of those beliefs.

I'm also aware that many atheists feel defensive in a world where they're usually outnumbered by those with some religious belief.

But that still doesn't make condescending arguments that people with religious beliefs are stupid or at least illogical any less likely to backfire, unless you're preaching to an atheist choir.

This is the Religion forum, and at times it looks like a Bashing Religion forum, or an Atheism forum.

If you feel you HAVE to put down anyone who doesn't share your beliefs as stupid or illogical, go right ahead.

But it's probably not having the effect you want on anyone not already 100% in agreement with you and similarly self-righteous.

[ADX]

179. Great post...

...I'll never understand why some people find it so difficult to just STFU and let other people believe or not believe whatever they want to...

[trotsky]

193. You are absolutely right.

No one should ever engage anyone else to discuss things they disagree about.

[ADX]

217. No one should engage anyone who doesn't want to be engaged...

...regarding issues of faith. I'm of the opinion that unsolicited opinions are impolite, to say the least. Disagree in silence unless invited to do/say otherwise...

[trotsky]

222. Uh, by being here in this open forum where all viewpoints are welcome, you are asking to be engaged.

If you don't want to be engaged, you shouldn't post your opinions here. You don't get to silence others by trying to shame them.

What the actual fuck is going on here?

[ADX]

226. What the actual fuck's going on here is that in your zeal to attempt to prove some kind of point...

...you're misinterpreting my posts. Obviously, I'm not talking about what people say or do on this forum, I'm talking about in general.

Calm down, sport.

[trotsky]

229. Thanks for the condescension! The OP compares atheists speaking negative opinions about religion...

with radical fundamentalists who scream messages of fire and brimstone.

Answer me simply this: do you feel this is a valid comparison? Are atheists posting opinions on the Internet the same as rabid fundies screaming on street corners and from the pulpits?

[ADX]

250. Condescension? Seriously? LMAO. This from someone who literally posted a dripping sarcasm smiley...

...Anyway...

Atheists posting their opinions on the Internet is the same as believers posting their opinions on the Internet. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion and to state that opinion civilly.

Rabid atheists screaming at believers to shun religion is the same as rabid believers screaming at atheists to accept religion. I've witnessed both and anyone who ridicules or derides someone else for what they do or don't believe can go fuck themselves.

People should be free to believe or not believe whatever they want to as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. It's pretty simple...

[trotsky]

252. So ironic.

People should be free to believe or not believe whatever they want to as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

You realize that statement is a belief, right? Surprise! It's NOT that simple. Who gets to define what "hurt"s others? Hobby Lobby thinks having to provide health insurance that covers contraception HURTS them. That was their argument. You are validating it.

So hey, you go on making sure to throw everyone into the two extreme categories, while asserting your own universal rules while screaming that others need to follow them.

[ADX]

254. First off my "rules" aren't universal, they're my opinions...

...and I don't demand, let alone "scream" that anyone else needs to agree with them.

That being said, if you'd like to continue ridiculing and/or deriding my opinions, I've already explained how that works.

Have a great day...

[trotsky]

255. Oh OK. Got it. "Rules for thee, not for me."

Take care and enjoy being superior to everyone else.

[ADX]

256. Thanks, Mr. Kettle!

[trotsky]

259. Any time, Mr. Pot.

Oops, looks like you forgot how that saying goes. , indeed.

[ADX]

264. Nope, I didn't forget...

...I knew exactly what I was saying. You, apparently, didn't...

[trotsky]

266. Oh dear.

"Pot calling the kettle black" is a saying that points out the hypocrisy of one of those items.

(Hint: it's not the item you called me.)

[ADX]

269. Oh dear...

...The kettle is just as black as the pot.

Try to keep up, ok?

[trotsky]

275. Apparently you didn't understand what that saying means.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pot-calling-the-kettle-black

I am only trying to save you from future embarrassment now. Please insult me again if you wish, but I have no desire to engage with you any further.

[trotsky]

290. "I hope you get the help you need"??

Wow, that says all I need to know about your allegedly superior morality. Personally attacking me for being mentally ill. You stay classy.

[ADX]

291. Who said anything about mental illness?

...I clearly outlined your problem, which you have corroborated by "engaging" with me yet again despite your previous assertion not to do so.

It is what it is, not what you pretend it to be or try to elevate it to.

[trotsky]

292. Doubling down on the abuse. An interesting tactic.

Don't know why you had to stoop to that level, but I believe it reveals far more about you than what you tried to say about me.

[trotsky]

192. Uh huh.

Must have struck a nerve, considering how much you're lashing out here.

[highplainsdem]

194. LOL

[trotsky]

196. For real, take a good look at what you've posted.

When pressed for a specific example of this horrible atheist proselytization, you mentioned an ad on a bus.

An AD on an BUS.

For real?

There's an uncountable number of preachers on television every Sunday declaring that non-believers are going to hell. There are insane religious fundies with actual political power who are trying to restrict reproductive rights, oppress homosexuals, and institute biblical law for the rest of us to live under.

But a few atheists who pool their money to let other atheists know they're not alone in this world are the equivalent? REALLY?

You've made an absolute joke of what could have been a point. Instead, your OP is a classic example of that cartoon come to life, and I think on some certain level you realize that. That atheists posting negative opinions about religion on the Internet is NOT anything like those other things. But that bothers you, and to try and suppress those viewpoints (because they are expressly welcome in this forum - just check the statement of purpose, which states that ALL viewpoints on religion are welcome), you seek to attack and smear.

No better than the straw man atheists you are bashing, oddly enough.

[highplainsdem]

203. No, that excerpt was posted as an example of the words "proselytize" and "evangelize" being used

to describe the tone of some atheists pushing their belief system. And as that article makes clear, that ad is seen as soft-peddling those beliefs, not being strident, though some atheists are still uncomfortable with that.

There are a lot of examples of strident proselytizing of atheism in this forum.

It's in condescension, the assumption and often the explicit statement that people who hold religious beliefs are stupid, or at least illogical, and therefore inferior to atheists.

As I've pointed out elsewhere here, there are a lot of widely admired Democratic leaders who consider themselves people of faith.

When you say people of faith are stupid or illogical, you're not just attacking Jerry Falwell, Jr., or Robert Jeffress.

You're also inevitably leveling that criticism at Democratic leaders such as Obama and Biden and Hillary Clinton.

[trotsky]

221. And the "tone" of saying "we're here" is the same as that of the TV preacher?

You're only digging your hole deeper.

You want atheists to be silent. I understand.

Hopefully you'll understand when atheists tell you they won't be silenced.

[highplainsdem]

227. Again: I have nothing against atheists, and there's nothing wrong with making a case for your

belief, or non-belief.

I'm pointing out that suggesting or stating bluntly that people with religious beliefs hold those beliefs because they're stupid/illogical/unreasoning/irrational will backfire in a discussion (except for the cheers from the other atheists happy with that description of non-atheists), as well as foolishly insulting many of the people we at DU admire. People who are obviously NOT stupid/illogical/unreasoning/irrational.

[trotsky]

230. But that's exactly what your OP said.

You equate atheists posting in this group - where people can choose to read or ignore them - with rabid preaching religious fundamentalists.

You've smeared both groups by lumping them together.

Criticizing belief is NOT the same as "foolishly insulting" anyone. Or are you suggesting that some ideas (e.g., religious ones) can never be criticized?

[Mariana]

231. Of course they are identical, Trotsky!

This:




has exactly the same "tone" as these:











?fit=620%2C350

[trotsky]

234. Two sides of the same coin, CLEARLY!!

[Eko]

246. Do you agree with everything that Obama, Biden and Clinton have done?

[guillaumeb]

274. Far better if this "classic" had some relevance.

Agreed?

[trotsky]

276. You have convinced yourself.

But only yourself.

[LongtimeAZDem]

177. I would argue that genuine proselytizing by atheists is wrong, but rare

By definition, proselytizing is an attempt to convert; while many atheists will promote their position, it is almost always (in the cases I have observed) to be based on evidence and rational argumentation, which I maintain is not the same thing.

[Moostache]

181. I defer to the master...Mr. Carlin, take it away...

And a hearty "Joe Bless You" to all!!!

[NeoGreen]

195. Everything before the 'but' is...

...

I have nothing against people who don't believe in spirituality, but people who proselytize non-belief can be every bit as tiring as religious fundamentalists proselytizing their belief systems.

A typical sentiment regarding statements of this nature:

[LongtimeAZDem]

257. Yeah

[guillaumeb]

202. Recommended.

Tribalism has positive and negative aspects, especially for the "other" in any society.


And who that "other" is depends on the tribe, or the nation. The modern day large scale equivalent of the tribe.

[trotsky]

279. "I have nothing against people who don't believe in conservatism, but people who proselytize...

liberalism can be every bit as tiring as right-wing partisans proselytizing their belief system."

Oh no wait, we're OK with that because we as liberals believe our ideas are better than conservative ideas, right?

It's just atheists who need to censor themselves to please you.

[NeoGreen]

283. Ouch dude...

...going for the jugular on that one.

[A HERETIC I AM]

293. Well, I'm clearly Sam Elliott.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

328. Sweet essay.

Thanks for your thoughts. Well done!