Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[carepov]

...programming [kids] to accept an idea without evidence, is a great disservice. Like Dawkins has said it is possibly even a mild form of child abuse.

Here is where I think you get it wrong because you have the wrong perspective on today's religious people in the West.

What I see is that for the most part, yes religious people teach their young children about their religious beliefs about god/creation/other stories similar to Santa. Later, kids learn that Santa is not real and many religious stories are not to be taken literally - and the focus is more on values. They are explained that belief in God is a leap of faith and they can choose to get involved in the organized religion as little or as much as they want.

Of course it is a disservice to overdo religious teachings (it is a disservice to overdo almost anything) but it is also a disservice to hinder people from practicing a religion.

[Moonlight Graham]

Why is this item sacred so to speak?

In defense of religious people, these beliefs are sacred to them. I grew up Christian, and now I'd describe myself as agnostic if not atheist, and the vast majority of large organized religions (which is separate from personal spiritual beliefs) are total crap IMO. As someone who has been on both sides of faith and non-faith, I know how important faith is to people. That doesn't mean religious beliefs shouldn't be criticized, even sometimes ridiculed, but doing so is very threatening and offensive to people whose beliefs are so central to their lives and inner being. Many people would even die for their religious beliefs. People would die for other things too, like family and their country, but the saying "God, family, country" (in that order) shows how God, to them, supersedes pretty much everything in their lives.

That said, these beliefs are so important to people that some people will even suspend rational thought and reality to legitimize these beliefs to themselves, even when they're clearly BS (ie: Adam and Eve). Most religious people grew up being taught what to believe, and have never taken the time to critically examine their beliefs. If people rationally examined their beliefs with an open mind, and why they believe what they do, and looked at the evidence and historical backgrounds of their beliefs (ie FACTS), it would be impossible to believe some of this stuff as they do without being completely and dangerously irrational. ie: I wonder how many Christians know that the people who wrote the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never actually met Jesus nor even were alive during Jesus' lifetime, and that these Gospels weren't even written by the people attributed to them:

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was not part of the first editions. The tradition that this was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (b. 63),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Composition_and_setting

Much of the Bible is a really long game of telephone tag, but Mom and Dad and schoolteacher and priest don't teach kids this stuff. Basically, a lot of people believe things blindly, without even knowing what the heck they are believing. Everyone should question every single belief they've ever held (religious or not), on moral/ethical and factual grounds. Questioning things that are commonly held to be true is the fundamental aspect of critical thinking, philosophy, and science.

[Guest American Woman]

For the record, even though I have never talked about where I stand in regards to religion and don't intent do discuss my beliefs or lack thereof, I will say that I have no religious beliefs that are "sacred to me." Nor am I "touchy" about the intolerance I see on this board because I hold any "embarrassment" about my beliefs (talk about a ludicrous notion, which really shows how out of touch with reality some people are). Fact is, I think a few of you non-believers should be embarrassed over your beliefs.

Seems to me, though, that the beliefs of those in this thread who do not believe in a God are "sacred to them." They cannot even fathom any belief other than their own, to the point where they have no qualms about looking down upon those who do believe in a God; they think everyone should believe as they do. Same as the fundamentalist religious. There is no difference. Simply opposite sides of the coin. All of you are totally unable to have a discussion about anyone else's beliefs. It's just 'no, I'm right! anyone who doesn't believe as I do is wrong.' You are so very sure that you have the answer to the age old question. Newsflash. That's not "questioning" nor is it any more evidence of "critical thinking" than those you look down upon.

You are all cut from the same cloth, and you are all totally intolerant of anyone else's beliefs. You cannot even discuss it in a mature, rational, respectful way. But yeah, you are all sooo very enlightened.

[guyser]

For the record,, , you are all sooo very enlightened.

Does this include the atheists on MLW ?

[guyser]

A discussion without the disrespect. I doubt it'll ever happen though, at least not on MLW, which is why I so seldom post in the threads about religion.

10-12 posts in the last 6 pages.

Seldom = regularly . Now we know.

[Mighty AC]

Seems to me, though, that the beliefs of those in this thread who do not believe in a God are "sacred to them." They cannot even fathom any belief other than their own, to the point where they have no qualms about looking down upon those who do believe in a God; they think everyone should believe as they do. Same as the fundamentalist religious. There is no difference. Simply opposite sides of the coin. All of you are totally unable to have a discussion about anyone else's beliefs. It's just 'no, I'm right! anyone who doesn't believe as I do is wrong.' You are so very sure that you have the answer to the age old question. Newsflash. That's not "questioning" nor is it any more evidence of "critical thinking" than those you look down upon.

Again, atheists aren't asserting there are no gods nor are they professing a belief. Atheists have a lack of belief in deities. There is simply no evidence of their existence.

You are also an atheist with respect to hundreds of other gods, I just happen to not believe in one more that you. If solid evidence of a god (yours or others) could be produced I would believe in it.

For now though we probably both agree that belief in Thor or Zeus, without evidence is silly. We can't prove that Zeus is fictional but there is absolutely no evidence, on which to base a belief in the first place.

[sharkman]

Philosophy and science have not always been friendly toward the idea of God, the reason being they are dedicated to the task of accounting for things and are impatient with anything that refuses to give an account of itself. The philosopher and the scientist will admit that there is much that they do not know; but that is quite another thing from admitting there is something which they can never know, which indeed they have no technique for discovering. A.W. Tozer

[The_Squid]

Tozer was wrong. Plenty of scientists claim that there are things we may never know, including prominent atheist scientists.

It is possible that we might be smart enough to derive a theory that explains precisely how the laws of physics are distributed across universes, and what the probability that our laws are what they are. But it is equally plausible that without access to a larger sample set we may never know.

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23816

In the same conversation, he says we may never know three different times about a subject that he is a foremost expert on.

[Bonam]

Tozer was wrong. Plenty of scientists claim that there are things we may never know, including prominent atheist scientists.

In the same conversation, he says we may never know three different times about a subject that he is a foremost expert on.

Indeed, scientists are always ready to explain the limitations of their knowledge. That is because they trade in real knowledge, which always has its limits, rather than fake certainty.

[Moonlight Graham]

Seems to me, though, that the beliefs of those in this thread who do not believe in a God are "sacred to them." They cannot even fathom any belief other than their own, to the point where they have no qualms about looking down upon those who do believe in a God; they think everyone should believe as they do. Same as the fundamentalist religious. There is no difference.

There is a difference. Atheists are just asking for evidence (scientifically testable evidence) of a God/Gods and any other beliefs.

I challenge you (or anyone else) to tell me one good reason why anyone should believe there is one God and that there isn't actually 5 Gods. Many Christians believe there is one God (monotheism). Why? Why isn't there be 5 Gods? Or 20?

Edited September 26, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

Again, atheists aren't asserting there are no gods nor are they professing a belief. Atheists have a lack of belief in deities. There is simply no evidence of their existence.

You are also an atheist with respect to hundreds of other gods, I just happen to not believe in one more that you. If solid evidence of a god (yours or others) could be produced I would believe in it.

For now though we probably both agree that belief in Thor or Zeus, without evidence is silly. We can't prove that Zeus is fictional but there is absolutely no evidence, on which to base a belief in the first place.

Exactly. The Ancient Greeks believed that when lightning flashed during a storm, that it was actually Zeus who was angry and throwing down these bolts of lighting from Mount Olympous. Now we see that this is silly, and Greek Gods are ridiculous to believe in. How can you respect the belief in a Christian God and not in Greek Gods?

[Bonam]

Exactly. The Ancient Greeks believed that when lightning flashed during a storm, that it was actually Zeus who was angry and throwing down these bolts of lighting from Mount Olympous. Now we see that this is silly, and Greek Gods are ridiculous to believe in. How can you respect the belief in a Christian God and not in Greek Gods?

I dunno, Greek and Norse religions are way cooler than Christianity or Islam. If I was gonna worship a make believe entity, Thor with his lightning bolts, or Odin who sacrificed his eye in order to gain knowledge seem way cooler than some socialist preacher who got himself killed, or a desert nomad who raped children.

[bleeding heart]

So do you or do you not have a problem with the thought that blacks are ignorant? If you want to sidestep the question, then I ask why is it so uncomfortable that you avoid it?

I'm not uncomfortable with it; I think it's a preposterous notion.

You're saying then that if I am guilty of discrimination against left wingers, then it's wrong for me to criticize discrimination against people of faith. What kind of argument is that? What's wrong is wrong, no matter who does it.

I'm NOT saying you're "guilty of discrimination against left wingers."

This is all YOUR formulation, with which I don't agree.

Edited September 26, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

Again, atheists aren't asserting there are no gods nor are they professing a belief. Atheists have a lack of belief in deities.

Atheists most certainly are asserting that there is no god. That's what "a lack of belief in deities" means.

There is a difference. Atheists are just asking for evidence (scientifically testable evidence) of a God/Gods and any other beliefs.

My post that you were responding to wasn't in regards to "atheists," I don't paint all atheists with the same brush as some here are doing re: "religious people," but of "those in this thread who do not believe in a God." And no, there is no difference at all. Many atheists aren't "just asking for scientific evidence," but judging all who believe in a god and - this is the bottom line - failing to recognize that science does not have all the answers to everything at this place and time. Furthermore, not everything has "scientific evidence;" there is no scientific evidence of love, but we don't dispute its existence. I've said repeatedly that those who believe see evidence, have evidence, but not everyone is willing to accept it. This has been true of many claims throughout history.

I challenge you (or anyone else) to tell me one good reason why anyone should believe there is one God and that there isn't actually 5 Gods. Many Christians believe there is one God (monotheism). Why? Why isn't there be 5 Gods? Or 20?

Why would I want to convince you of anything? I don't care what you believe. I see no reason at all why anyone should give you any good reasons to believe anything other than what you believe. It's not about trying to convince you, or anyone else, what to believe. It's about accepting and respecting that not everyone is going to believe as you do. And I see none of that among the 'holier than thou' posters who have shown themselves as biased/bigoted against the religious - painting them all with one brush, looking down on all of them.

[guyser]

Atheists most certainly are asserting that there is no god. That's what "a lack of belief in deities" means.

Hmm...

I don't paint all atheists with the same brush as some here are doing

Except you just did in the prior sentence.

I've said repeatedly that those who believe see evidence, have evidence, but not everyone is willing to accept it. This has been true of many claims throughout history.

If referring to religion, well , there has never been any evidence that would confirm any of the otherworldly claims religions make.

And I see none of that among the 'holier than thou' posters who have shown themselves as biased/bigoted against the religious - painting them all with one brush, looking down on all of them.

Physician... heal thyself.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Guyser2

[Mighty AC]

Atheists most certainly are asserting that there is no god. That's what "a lack of belief in deities" means.

No, there is a distinct difference. For example:

A glass jar contains an unknown quantity of jelly beans. The total number is either odd or even.

You claim the total is even.

I reject your claim.

By rejecting your even claim, I do not believe that the total is odd. I simply reject your claim because there is no evidence to support it. I have a lack of belief in the even number claim and a lack of belief in deities.

Does this make sense now?

[Mighty AC]

Furthermore, not everything has "scientific evidence;" there is no scientific evidence of love, but we don't dispute its existence. I've said repeatedly that those who believe see evidence, have evidence, but not everyone is willing to accept it. This has been true of many claims throughout history.

Science does not have all the answers yet, nor does it pretend to. Instead it pursues questions and answers more of them every day. Religion pretends to have answers, which actually inhibits the search for truth.

Your statement above is an example of the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. This fallacy can be used on my omnipotent universe creating Gummy Bear example too. Try to prove that our lord Gummy does not exist. Now I could add, you have to believe in the gummy before you can see evidence for it...but that doesn't make it any more true.

Also we already do know why we feel love. It is a feeling created by the release of a series of hormones including: adrenaline, dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and vasopressin. More importantly, even before we understood the process the absence of knowledge did not make every assertion an acceptable or reasonable belief. For example there is no evidence of a cupid so that assertion was meaningless long before we could map the true physical and mental process behind love.

[Guest American Woman]

No, there is a distinct difference. For example:

A glass jar contains an unknown quantity of jelly beans. The total number is either odd or even.

You claim the total is even.

I reject your claim.

By rejecting your even claim, I do not believe that the total is odd. I simply reject your claim because there is no evidence to support it. I have a lack of belief in the even number claim and a lack of belief in deities.

Does this make sense now?

No. There is not a distinct difference. There is no difference at all. Your belief that everyone should believe as you do, your belief that anyone who believes in a god is of less intelligence, is just the opposite side of the coin of the religious who think everyone should believe as they do; that their belief is The Truth. You are as intolerant as they are. You are simply the opposite side of the coin.

You can reject anyone's claim (I myself haven't claimed anything - I don't claim to have the answers). It's your looking down on those who reject your claim that I have been taking issue with.

[Guest American Woman]

Science does not have all the answers yet, nor does it pretend to. Instead it pursues questions and answers more of them every day. Religion pretends to have answers, which actually inhibits the search for truth.

All religious people do not claim to have the answer. Some simply believe what they believe. YOU claim to have the answer, even as you recognize that science at this point does not have all the answers to life's questions.

Your statement above is an example of the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

I've never said any such thing. You, on the other hand, say that a proposition is false because science has not proven it true. Science also has not proven it false. Science does not have all of the answers, as you acknowledge, so just because science has not proven it's true doesn't mean it's false.

Also we already do know why we feel love. It is a feeling created by the release of a series of hormones including: adrenaline, dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and vasopressin. More importantly, even before we understood the process the absence of knowledge did not make every assertion an acceptable or reasonable belief.

Love isn't the feeling created by the release of those hormones - those hormones are released by feelings of love. I wouldn't doubt that there's a similar release of hormones when one feels God's presence in their life.

For example there is no evidence of a cupid so that assertion was meaningless long before we could map the true physical and mental process behind love.

God isn't thought to be a physical being like cupid, so your comparison is irrelevant.

[GostHacked]

We've been through this athiest thing with Betsy to exhausting lengths, all we need to do is simply point AW to those threads, and the main topic of this one can be carried on.

More cowbell 'quotations'!!

[BubberMiley]

You, on the other hand, say that a proposition is false because science has not proven it true.

I thought the jelly bean analogy was very clear. He didn't say that the idea that there is an even number of jelly beans is false. He just questioned the intelligence of declaring a belief in an even number of jelly beans without reliable evidence supporting it.

Talk about putting words in someone's mouth.

Edited September 27, 2013 by BubberMiley

[cybercoma]

You're never going to get through to someone that is unwilling or unable to understand the argument being made.

[The_Squid]

Your belief that everyone should believe as you do...

Show us where AC said this.

[Mighty AC]

No. There is not a distinct difference. There is no difference at all. Your belief that everyone should believe as you do, your belief that anyone who believes in a god is of less intelligence, is just the opposite side of the coin of the religious who think everyone should believe as they do; that their belief is The Truth. You are as intolerant as they are. You are simply the opposite side of the coin.

I thought the example was pretty clear. Now, I'm not sure if you missed the point or you actually understood but would rather believe that atheism is a belief rather than a rejection of one. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try again. I originally chose an example with only two options because it mirrors the discussion we're having here. However, maybe an example with more outcomes will be more clear.

A number between 1 and 100 is written on a folded piece of paper. There is no way to know what the number is.

You say the number is 42.

I reject that claim. There is no evidence and no reason to believe 42 is the number.

By rejecting your unfounded claim of 42 I am not advocating for 4, 87, 99, etc. I'm also not saying that 42 is impossible. I am simply saying that it is unlikely and silly to believe the number is 42 without evidence.

[Guest]

Is it still atheism if you acknowledge that the existence of a supreme being is a possibility? I've always described myself as an Agnostic Atheist because, while I don't believe in a God, I can't say I totally believe that there does not exist the possibility of one.

I always understood atheism to be the absolute belief that there is no God.

But it's not something I lose too much sleep over, so if I'm wrong, I'll deal with it.