Do religious people have a right to push their faith at others?

[Guest American Woman]

This is patently absurd. It has already been explained to you twice why this isn't the case. You don't need proof to not believe in santa claus, a refrigerator sized diamond buried in my backyard or the flying spaghetti monster.

Belief in God isn't comparable to Santa, or the diamond in your back yard, or the flying spaghetti monster. There is no universal belief in those things based on a historical basis/evidence of them; not to mention Santa is admittedly fictional. Why people think this line of thought is applicable to whether or not there is a God escapes me. Many people feel there is proof of a God, you don't believe there is. You don't believe that what they believe is proof is proof. But until you can prove that it's not, your disbelief is just the opposite side of their belief- and you have no more evidence that there isn't a God than they do that there is. It's all personal beliefs; nothing has been proven or disproved beyond a doubt.

Not believing is the default stance. You don't automatically believe everything people say to you (well, maybe you do if you're a complete moron) then gather evidence for reasons not to believe.

Again, you cannot compare a universal timeless belief in God with a historical basis/evidence with "everything people say to you." That's not a legitimate rebuttal. You do not know that there isn't a superior being/force/God - you simply believe that there isn't. We don't have proof that there is life on other planets. That lack of proof isn't proof that there isn't. Lack of concrete proof does not always equal legitimate dismissal of the possibility.

If someone tells you something completely unrealistic, like... oh... I dunno... that there's a teapot in space that orbits the sun, you would automatically disbelieve them and ask for evidence of this teapot. When they couldn't provide evidence you would thus continue your disbelief or reservations about this absurdity.

Once again you are comparing a belief in God/a superior being to something "someone" says; something with no basis, no universal belief, no historical context, no evidence at all. So yes, in that instance you would react as you said, and they would not be able to come up with the multitude of "evidence" that there is regarding a God. Whether you believe that evidence or not doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. On the other hand, there is nothing to so much as minutely suggest that there is a teapot in space that orbits the sun. It's something you simply made up, based on absolutely nothing.

However, when it comes to religion, this type of nonsense is taught to children before they're of an age where they can reason and it becomes accepted in society as a fact.

To you it's nonsense. The key word being "you." Your believing that it's nonsense doesn't mean that it is. You have no proof that it's nonsense, other than your feelings. You are projecting your beliefs as fact and they are no more fact than people's religious beliefs.

As for people believing in it simply because they were taught it as children, you are wrong - many children who grew up with religion end up not believing when they get older and many children raised without religion do choose to believe when they get older. To say belief in God is simply accepted in society is not the way it is. There have been countless debates, countless literature, etc. on the subject through the ages. People question it all the time, and that includes people who do ultimately believe in God-a superior being/force.

Then when someone asks for evidence of these seemingly absurd facts, people say, "well look how many people believe it. It must be true!"

People say much more than that. So much more. You must not be listening to what people are saying or else you haven't made an effort to find out. No one I know or have read of has given that answer to support their beliefs. No one. I know of no one who believes in God simply because "many people believe it [so] it must be true."

It's not and people rightfully, without the need for evidence, will continue to believe it's not true until convincing evidence arises. It has been centuries. We're still waiting.

People have waited for a long time to get evidence to prove or disprove many beliefs, and we will be waiting still, probably for the rest of eternity, for some concrete evidence regarding one thing or another; and there's a huge difference between "convincing" evidence and "concrete" evidence. The former is a matter of personal opinion. What's convincing to one person isn't convincing to another, and vice versa.

But to say that because there's no concrete proof people "rightfully" continue to believe it's not true is at best an arguable statement, ie: your belief; they no more "rightfully" believe it than one could say people "rightfully" didn't believe the world was round until there was concrete evidence or people "rightfully" believe there is no other life in the universe etc..

[cybercoma]

I don't find Dawkins particularly intelligent. I definitely wouldn't put him in the same category as somebody like Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is an intellect. Dawkins is far from it.

Hitchens is a journalist, while Dawkins is an Oxford academic. You must be confused between charisma and intelligence.

[cybercoma]

Believing something doesn't make it true. Lots of people believing something for a long period of time, likewise doesn't make it true. It's quite simple. If God exists, show the evidence for it. If something doesn't exist, there isn't going to be evidence for it not being there. It's really quite silly that anyone would even suggest proving the absence of something.

[M.Dancer]

Again, you cannot compare a universal timeless belief in God with a historical basis/evidence with "everything people say to you."

No such thing as a universal timelss belief in God.

[bush_cheney2004]

No such thing as a universal timelss belief in God.

Ahhhh, but this is at the root of the question. Does this "God" only exist because it has been created through human existence, or is it more universal? To say that something can only exist if recognized by humans is very limiting.

[M.Dancer]

Ahhhh, but this is at the root of the question. Does this "God" only exist because it has been created through human existence, or is it more universal? To say that something can only exist if recognized by humans is very limiting.

Whether God exists is outside the statement "universal timeless belief in God"

Let say for sake of argument, God exists....there still has never been a universal belief in God or a universal definition of god...

[bush_cheney2004]

...Let say for sake of argument, God exists....there still has never been a universal belief in God or a universal definition of god...

But consistent with the limited definition/recognition by humans, there is/are several "universal" belief systems with god/gods. That was my point....universal can mean several things, and is certainly not limited to humans.

[M.Dancer]

But consistent with the limited definition/recognition by humans, there is/are several "universal" belief systems with god/gods. That was my point....universal can mean several things, and is certainly not limited to humans.

If by universal, you are using the "catholic" sense of the word....then sure...multiversal even.

But there is no one, "universal timelss belief in God" and timeless is not even a possibility in this regard as belief falls within the realm of time.

[bush_cheney2004]

If by universal, you are using the "catholic" sense of the word....then sure...multiversal even.

Not at all....I am challenging the very notion of "universal" in any human context. Specifically, that proof or disproof by/for humans only has a very narrow relevance, and is otherwise meaningless in the larger context. The foundation of "faith" declares this very circumstance....faith being strong belief in the absence of proof.

But there is no one, "universal timelss belief in God" and timeless is not even a possibility in this regard as belief falls within the realm of time.

Again, these are abstract concepts that are not bound by our definitions or experience, including time. The notion of "God" does have universal appeal and applications from the ancient past to this very day. It even shows up in modern government constitutions.

[M.Dancer]

Not at all....I am challenging the very notion of "universal" in any human context.

It has no context outside of the human context..barring an extraterrertial context. You can challenge that all you want...and far from being limiting, we ourselves are limited, so it really doesn't matter.

[Shady]

Hitchens is a journalist, while Dawkins is an Oxford academic. You must be confused between charisma and intelligence.

Hitchens isn't a journalist, he's a writer. And Dawkins is hardly an academic. His arguments boil down to name calling. He lacks charisma and intelligence. Hitchens has more of both than he does.

[Sir Bandelot]

It has no context outside of the human context

And we are human beings.

[bush_cheney2004]

It has no context outside of the human context..barring an extraterrertial context. You can challenge that all you want...and far from being limiting, we ourselves are limited, so it really doesn't matter.

Good, so now that I have your human attention, the odds for "God" are getting better, if only slightly. Any discussion so far is bounded by such inherent limitations and definitions, leaving the possibility for something quite unexpected. This, coupled with the logical inability to prove a negative, bodes well for the prayer business well into the future.

[dre]

But until you can prove that it's not, your disbelief is just the opposite side of their belief- and you have no more evidence that there isn't a God than they do that there is. It's all personal beliefs; nothing has been proven or disproved beyond a doubt.

This is just more "negative proof" fallacy. When someone makes a wild claim that they cant support and someone else doesnt believe them its ridiculous to suggest those two positions are on an equal footing.

I could make up virtually ANYTHING and you wouldnt be able to prove it isnt true. It doesnt mean jack shit.

In the case of the hundreds of human religions, poly-theistic, and mono-theistic belief systems... theres nothing to dispute... nothing to disprove. These are entirely faith-based beliefs and its utterly impossible for them to EVER be disproven by empirical evidence. But more importantly attempting to do so is not even an excersize that has any point or value.

[bush_cheney2004]

....In the case of the hundreds of human religions, poly-theistic, and mono-theistic belief systems... theres nothing to dispute... nothing to disprove. These are entirely faith-based beliefs and its utterly impossible for them to EVER be disproven by empirical evidence. But more importantly attempting to do so is not even an excersize that has any point or value.

There are several polytheistic and pagan belief systems which do stand up to such scrutiny, as they are based on natural elements and relationships. They are not entirely faith based.

[betsy]

For there has to be a reason to think something might exist in the first place...Scientists are searching for dark matter and smaller and smaller particles..they haven't found them (at least all of them) but they think they might be there...

On the other hand, they don't bother to look for things that they don't believe exist....like green cheese on the moon...and there has been the opportunity to find it...

I lack sleep so I might not be seeing this right. But doesn't these two statements contradict one another?

[BubberMiley]

But doesn't these two statements contradict one another?

They look for things they think they'll find but don't look for things they don't think they'll find. Nope. Makes perfect sense.

[Oleg Bach]

They look for things they think they'll find but don't look for things they don't think they'll find. Nope. Makes perfect sense.

That does make sense. If a scientific type who is so proud and arrogant never even considers finding intelligent life in the universe (God) he will never find it. Peculiar how those that do not seek out God or proof of God...are more than willing to seek out and believe in the possiblities of little green men on other planets - or fairies for that matter.

[bloodyminded]

I don't find Dawkins particularly intelligent. I definitely wouldn't put him in the same category as somebody like Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is an intellect. Dawkins is far from it.

They're not comparable. Hitchens is not a scientist; Dawkins is not a literary polymath.

And yes, they're both "intellects" (I assume you meant "intellectuals").

Hitchens isn't a journalist, he's a writer. And Dawkins is hardly an academic. His arguments boil down to name calling. He lacks charisma and intelligence. Hitchens has more of both than he does.

If you're unaware of Hitchens' propensity, on a continual basis, to indulge in name-calling, you're freely admitting that you know very, very little of his work. (Which begs the question of why you remark about him as you do.)

At any rate, you should read what he says about Israel, and you will quickly learn to detest him, I suspect.

Edited June 26, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Not at all....I am challenging the very notion of "universal" in any human context. Specifically, that proof or disproof by/for humans only has a very narrow relevance, and is otherwise meaningless in the larger context. The foundation of "faith" declares this very circumstance....faith being strong belief in the absence of proof.

Often it's strong belief in contradiction of proof.

[betsy]

No such thing as a universal timelss belief in God.

There is a universal belief in God, or gods, or dieties all through history of man. Worship of the heavenly bodies, nature (that includes the trees, volcanoes, the wind, etc.,), animals (bulls, reptiles, etc.,), the supernatural, statues and images, and who knows what else.

[M.Dancer]

There is a universal belief in God, or gods, or dieties all through history of man. Worship of the heavenly bodies, nature (that includes the trees, volcanoes, the wind, etc.,), animals (bulls, reptiles, etc.,), the supernatural, statues and images, and who knows what else.

No. Not at all. Please check your definition of "Universal"

The worship of Zeus or Jupiter was not and cannot be defined as universal simply because there was no one set of universal beliefs, canons, ascribed to Zeus or Jupitor...same goes for cows and the wind or other supernatural superstitions.

[DrGreenthumb]

So now were going to get the state involved in what parents can discuss with their children? Seriously? Are you gonna put secret microphones in peoples homes?

Many of you are clearly insane.

Why microphones in people's homes, when we can just allow the government surveillance of our internet activity with no need for warrants like Harper is already planning to do?

[eyeball]

Why microphones in people's homes, when we can just allow the government surveillance of our internet activity with no need for warrants like Harper is already planning to do?

Who gets to monitor Harper's internet activity?

Ewwwww.

[Oleg Bach]

Who gets to monitor Harper's internet activity?

Ewwwww.

Harper does not have ìnternet activity. No one with any brains uses the net in a serous manner - only fools such as myself and you toy around on the net. Myself - I don`t give a damn if I am creating a compromising record of my ill thoughts.