I think most people are at least curt with flatearthers. ToyCen was berated often even before his mental illness blew up from the innocent delusions to full psychosis. AS it stands now religious people are generally given a wide birth (especially Muslims) out of fear or just political correctness.
How so? Believing in a religion requires a lot of sacrifices. Money, time, living style, etc. If someone believes that people should not "waste" their time on such things that brings no tangible benefits in their mind, and atheists would surely believe spending time and money to worship a non-existent God to be a waste, shouldn't you be lauding them for speaking their minds and try to spread their ways? 1st amendment and all? In fact, isn't that a bit like... spreading religion?
If you want to understand why Atheists might want to proselytize, or what they are hoping the benefit might be, John Lennon pretty much summed it all up: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/yRhq-yO1KN8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> If I had to describe the real problem, though, it would be people who are incapable of simultaneously believing in something, while at the same time considering the possibility they might be wrong. You do see this sort of self-righteousness a bunch in religious authorities, but it also shows up in all sorts of other places, too.
I believe people will do terrible things regardless of religion, some just say that it is god that want them to do these terrible things. If they could say god made them do it, they would still do it. I really liked the south park episode were Cartman went to the future were there was no religion. I think those episodes were correct. This is because you miss the point of having these type of discussions . Having these discussion is not about convincing the other to change their point of view, it is about making sure both sides understand why the other has that point of view. I would never want to convince someone to stop believing in a god, when they are perfectly happy believing in a god. However it is important that people understand why others have another world view. For example a couple of posts in this thread: This generalisation of an entire group is bad. Not every atheist is the same (also not every Christian, Muslim Jew or whatever religion is the same). Making these generalization makes it easier for you to just ignore or bash the other group without trying to understand why they have a different opinion. Using this method you can just demonize an entire group without thinking, since they are all the same and all stupid. This leads to many useless discussions since it is easy to just use a extreme stereotype to bash millions of people. It is useful to actually listen to people with another opinion, and try to understand why they feel this way. btw Texxx this demonization of educated people is really pathetic, it is also happening in the Netherlands, suddenly it is a bad thing to be well educated? In my opinion in both cases people try to convince others that their lifestyle is better and makes you happier. Because you can relate better to the religious messages doesn’t make the non-religious method worse. Like I have said, I am against anybody who tries to convince others that one worldview is better than another. I want everybody to be happy, if they are happy believing in a God, good. If they are happy not believing in a god, also good. If they are happy believing in thousands of gods, also good. Where I have a problem is when people try to push their agenda on others. For example I do not want intelligent design to be taught in a biology class. It should be taught in a culture, or religion class. I do believe that religion should be a subject in school (preferably all major religions); my daughters will go to a Christian primary school, because I want them to understand what religion is about. Just because I do not believe in a god, doesn’t mean that my daughters would not be happier believing in a god.
^ lol pathetic attempt to generalize my quote, arno_ed. My point is that getting a PhD in something means you're highly educated on that field of study -- you don't suddenly become an expert on "everything", as they tend to think they are.
In theory, I totally agree with your statement! That is, that these discussions should help broaden our understanding, and there for help us better relate to one another, BUT in reality these discussions only help further cement our own personal viewpoints, and garner more negative feelings between members with opposing views! The reason for this is that the majority of posters that participate in the D&D have become accustomed to addressing one another in a condescending manner! To insult someone's beliefs and belittle someone's opinion is the norm and not the exception! I personally don't think that a better understanding is being achieved, BUT I've been wrong before so, who knows. This is what I hope my kids have learned from me! That there are good/bad people in every race,religion,nationality etc., and to judge a whole group based on the actions of a few is being ignorant at best! Inserting the Verizon guy saying "Can you hear me now?"....:grin: ....... ....... .......
Ok if that was what you meant I apologize, I was having flashbacks from Geert Wilders. I agree with you that having a PhD does not mean you are an expert on everything. I disagree with you that most people with a PhD think they are an expert on everything (atleast not more than people who do not have a PhD). Most of my friends who have a PhD understand they are not as smart as me:grin: Unfortunatly I agree with you. That is the norm. That is why I (And i think many other more level headed posters) do visit these threads to make sure a voice of reason is also heard. I hope at some point it actually works, I like to dream big:grin: I agree, this is what I will teach my daughters as well.
Religion is a slow dying anachronism. It has developed as a weird hybrid of scientific explanation and social/moral structure. In the path from the human 'animal' to wherever we are going it has been necessary to justify a standard of behaviour that allows human beings to cooperate and share so not only just the brutish survive and procreate. It is what has led us from nomadic bands of hierarchical hunter gatherer tribes to organized societies. If you wanted a world where the strongest male didn't just take all your women and food you needed a higher power that could influence his choices. And since there were many observable events that were greater than any human powers, and inexplicable at the time, you could create a story that ties your mythical higher power to those into a plausible case, that if told repeatedly, with conviction, could influence the actions of men. It seems obvious to me, "Anything sufficiently complex appears as magic to the less sophisticated observer". At this point, I just don't believe anything is supernatural. I think physics, chemistry, entropy and evolution pretty much explain where we are and how we got here since the Big Bang. I believe, by definition, the total lack of information from before that leaves any explanations of an ultimate cause unanswerable. But there is no evidence for a sentient being superseding space and time; certainly no evidence for an anthropomorphic one. So, it's time to move on.
I'm a sort of atheist and don't understand the urge to proslytize either. I don't see how other people would be helped by becoming atheists, and I don't see my own self-interest in getting them to. Converting people to atheism seems completely irrational to me.
Because the atheistic landscape has turned into a religion of its own, and that's ok. The religion doesn't define all the people who go by the title "atheist". It's simply broken up the community of atheists into subgroups, at least one of those groups being against the idea of a group religion. Just like with traditional religions, this is the sub group that claims to be the source of the religion and refuses any deviation from the idea that their beliefs are anything but individualistic. Of course, atheists seem to lean far far more towards the individualistic beliefs than any subgroup of popular religions and that makes total sense if you compare the theology inherent in each system. That's just how humans work. Some love to group up, some love to remain individualistic, and that's ok as long as no one is forcing anyone else into anything. I understand that this is as irritating (if not more) to atheists as it is for religious people of various belief systems to be categorized into one group. I don't mean it as an insult or a slight in any way. In fact I think atheists tend to give to society more than anyone because they are far more concerned with our natural life here on earth. I would just comment that I don't like how I tend to come across many atheists who try to deny (rather than mitigate) these innate human qualities that are unrelated to religion. As basketball fans, we should at least recognize it on a much smaller scale how these qualities drive humans into groups, subgroups and non-groups. Doesn't bother me. In fact what's nicer than hearing an opposing view point when you're constantly flooded by the dominant view point in your everyday life? The people in that booth are the people in that booth. They don't represent or speak for atheists, and they are not forcing anyone to listen to them. Sadly, we humans are all still trying to come to terms with that idea to varying degrees of success/failure.
Atheists irritate religionists because they expose their myths, and challenge the hierarchy. It's a revolution against the status quo. Right now, you could be the most moral, dedicated and expert dog catcher on Earth and not be elected dog catcher because you profess to have no religion. That's f'ed up.
The funniest part of this thread is bigtexx's belief that only Phd's make up the majority of atheists, and that they think they're experts in everything. It's like everything he types in and of itself disproves what he's typing. It's hard to believe he's met or interacted with many (any?) atheists, phd's or atheist/phd's. I've met many a phd. Many atheists. And some phd/atheists. If I was forced to choose one commonality among these groups of people it would be their willingness to accept that they only know what they know, and to question everything else, and learn from others... it's like bigtexx lives on bizarro planet.... where he meets a phd and automatically has his guard up... "f that guy, he must think he's better than me. Freaking atheist!" I think that speaks a lot to what type of person he probably is....
