One thing I really want

razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
One thing I really want

One thing I really want everyone to know, understand, and accept (atheists and theists) - not one person on this planet can prove God exists.  No possible proof can be offered to another individual to believe.  God makes himself known to every person on an individual basis.  Until you are called, you will remain in a state of disbelief, which is OK too because just as those in the time of Jesus that did not believe, there are those who were meant to believe and others who aren't.  Once we all accept this, understanding that I cannot convert you, and you cannot de-convert me, we'll all live much more happy, co-existing lives (and yes this is biblically supported).  It's from this point that I know, I realize, that nightline thing was a complete mistake.  I personally have had run-ins with WOTM-types and I don't agree with their approach.

Now as soon as we move on from that point, I'd be curious as to what kind of discussions we'd actually have.  From the RRS perspective, what would you discuss with a theist if you abandon the "prove God"  - the gnome challenge - question?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:AmericanIdle

Quote:
AmericanIdle wrote:
Were you under the impression that respecting everyone's beliefs was healthy? Tell me, do you respect the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan ? Why or why not ? Relatives of a kurdish teen stoned her to death in front of a mob and you can read about it on CNN right now. Those relatives had beliefs that led them to murder one of their own flesh and blood. Should we respect those beliefs as well? Maybe plug our ears until the final screams of her fear and her torture die out, perhaps ? We make conscious decisions all the time as to whether a belief is good for us as individuals and as a society. If all beliefs are equal how do humans ever rise above tyranny?

Beliefs are just that. 

Let's both just sit and contemplate this one for a moment or two.

Quote:
Because the KKK believes that white is superior does not make them correct.  But how you tell them they are incorrect in their belief is where the respect comes in.

So respectful reasoning is all that it takes to overcome hatred then?  Crap, why hasn't this ever been tried in history before ?  Think of all the bloodshed that could have been spared. 

So, why don't we teach respect for racism in schools ?  Why don't our laws convey respect for the beliefs of the KKK ? Maybe it's the point you keep trying to avoid.....All beliefs are not equally worthy of respect.

Quote:
 It is by their actions where they lose the respect that every person should be granted.  The KKK isn't respected because we know by biology and human anatomy we are all humans.

So, are you agreeing that all beliefs are not equal, while still doing your best not to actually say so here ?   Are you able to apply this reasoning of yours to theism (your own brand of theism I should say as the KKK are certainly theists) as well ?  Maybe it's safe to say that racism is an example of tyranny that humans have at least attempted to rise above ?

Quote:
how can you respect a group that does this?
  So we can't just give blanket respect to everyone equally.  Somebody pinch me ! 

Quote:

AmericanIdle wrote:
Live and let live is a wonderful policy based in idealism and rarely seen in reality. The list of theist ideologies that have managed to keep their hands to themselves is very short indeed if it exists at all.

If there is nothing wrong or unhealthy w/ humans living in ignorance, I assume you oppose children going to school, college, reading an instruction manual. How about your doctor keeping up with the latest medical practices before operating on you ? Why can't we allow them to live in ignorance if they wish ?

Why do these questions even have to be asked ?

Your first problem is you love to assume without asking one question.  If you actually think I oppose those things then you aren't worth discussing anything with. 

I couldn't care less whether you oppose those things or not, the issue is a response to your question..."why can't we just allow people to live as  ignorant as they wish"?  If as you suggest, we allow people to live as ignorant as they wish, then why don't we apply this universally ?  Answer the question w/ something of substance or just say, I don't know, but don't cloud it as if you couldn't grasp the concept.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I just asked

Vastet wrote:
I just asked what makes your beliefs different than anyone elses, and why ridiculous beliefs can't be discarded as ridiculous.

Wouldn't that fall under being disrespectful?  I don't particularly find anything that I'd call intelligent about scientolgists but I won't go around calling them fools for doing it.

Vastet wrote:
Which is not to suggest that you should try to evangelize me, just to suggest that it's not outside the realm of possibility for anyone to change their mind about an issue. If I believed otherwise I wouldn't be here. If your experience was experienced by me, who can say what I'd conclude? I don't even know what you experienced.

Thank you for finally showing a bit of understanding.

Vastet wrote:
I simply asked what makes your belief different from another. A possible extension to it could be an explanation for why a belief that I see is ridiculous should not be challenged. But you didn't cover that part.

And from my other posts I'm sure you've figured out that my beliefs are not followed by everyone exactly how I follow them.  Now that you bring it up, do you call ANY following of a supernatural God, ridiculous?

Vastet wrote:
As I'm not American, and don't intend to change that, the first amendment means nothing to me. I don't like the idea of messing with another people's political system unless it directly impacts me. Though I do admit I don't believe any dogmatic religion has any place in a civilized society. I don't generally have a problem with faith as long as it's kept away from power. Mixing the two is like pouring acid into water.

I don't think the concept of freedom of religion escapes you though.  You don't have to be American to value that.

As to the separation of church and state, well as soon as we get both sides to knock off the pompous acts of power we might get somewhere.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote: Let's

AmericanIdle wrote:
Let's both just sit and contemplate this one for a moment or two.

Uh huh....and my beliefs are different from yours.  Next? 

AmericanIdle wrote:
So respectful reasoning is all that it takes to overcome hatred then? Crap, why hasn't this ever been tried in history before ? Think of all the bloodshed that could have been spared.

Probably because most people are afraid of death so they'd rather kill than be killed.

AmericanIdle wrote:
So, why don't we teach respect for racism in schools ? Why don't our laws convey respect for the beliefs of the KKK ? Maybe it's the point you keep trying to avoid.....All beliefs are not equally worthy of respect.

See there you go again.  

It's not that I believe you should respect everyone blindly, people's actions dictate how respect is given or taken away.  Why would you want to respect racism?  That doesn't make any sense and the fact that you keep posting facetious nonsense isn't helping me understand why you must be disrespectful to me when I've done nothing to you.

AmericanIdle wrote:
So, are you agreeing that all beliefs are not equal, while still doing your best not to actually say so here?

Are you really that desperate to make me into some kind of ridiculous representation of a human?  How do you get to these conclusions that are so far off reality I can't even bring myself to formulate a serious response?

AmericanIdle wrote:
Are you able to apply this reasoning of yours to theism (your own brand of theism I should say as the KKK are certainly theists) as well ? Maybe it's safe to say that racism is an example of tyranny that humans have at least attempted to rise above ?

Are you going to ask me a specific question about it?  After all Vaslet and I have a full thread on just such a thing. 

AmericanIdle wrote:
I couldn't care less whether you oppose those things or not...

Apathy is not the solution either... 

AmericanIdle wrote:
...the issue is a response to your question..."why can't we just allow people to live as ignorant as they wish"? If as you suggest, we allow people to live as ignorant as they wish, then why don't we apply this universally ? Answer the question w/ something of substance or just say, I don't know, but don't cloud it as if you couldn't grasp the concept.

What do you mean apply it universally?  First we are talking about faith and you are applying it to much more and now I'm rather confused....mostly as to why but I need you to clarify much more. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Vastet

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I just asked what makes your beliefs different than anyone elses, and why ridiculous beliefs can't be discarded as ridiculous.

Wouldn't that fall under being disrespectful?  I don't particularly find anything that I'd call intelligent about scientolgists but I won't go around calling them fools for doing it.

Rather depends on the context. If I walked into a church and started denouncing the god the people within believed in, then even I'd have a problem with my audacity. But doing it to a preacher on the street? I see no disrespect. Same goes with a scientologist, though to be honest they require a different approach than most religions. Calling them a fool gets shrugged off by their heavily paid for indoctrination.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I simply asked what makes your belief different from another. A possible extension to it could be an explanation for why a belief that I see is ridiculous should not be challenged. But you didn't cover that part.

And from my other posts I'm sure you've figured out that my beliefs are not followed by everyone exactly how I follow them.  Now that you bring it up, do you call ANY following of a supernatural God, ridiculous?

I'm not sure anyones beliefs match up entirely with anyone elses. Lock two people in a room long enough and they'll disagree about something.
I'm not sure I like your question. It draws too much of a line in the sand. It has never been my goal to eradicate spirituality. It fits too well with emotion. Something logic cannot do. I think that following a conception of a super natural god isn't inherrantly problematic. But the ritualization and religiousification(new word?) of the concept of a super natural god is the worst thing that can happen to spirituality. It robs it of everything that can make it good.

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
As I'm not American, and don't intend to change that, the first amendment means nothing to me. I don't like the idea of messing with another people's political system unless it directly impacts me. Though I do admit I don't believe any dogmatic religion has any place in a civilized society. I don't generally have a problem with faith as long as it's kept away from power. Mixing the two is like pouring acid into water.

I don't think the concept of freedom of religion escapes you though.  You don't have to be American to value that.

No, but to be quite honest I didn't know that was the first amendment to the U.S. constitution. I've seen enough law-type tv to know the fifth fairly well, but that about sums it up. Sticking out tongue

razorphreak wrote:

As to the separation of church and state, well as soon as we get both sides to knock off the pompous acts of power we might get somewhere.

The only thing worse than a corrupt politician or a religious fanatic is both wrapped into one package. Or maybe a lawyer.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: But doing it

Vastet wrote:
But doing it to a preacher on the street? I see no disrespect. Same goes with a scientologist, though to be honest they require a different approach than most religions. Calling them a fool gets shrugged off by their heavily paid for indoctrination.

I'm not sure I follow.  I agree scientologists are in a leauge of their own but you'd apporach a Christian pastor and tell him "your religion is a joke"?  

Vastet wrote:
I'm not sure I like your question. It draws too much of a line in the sand. It has never been my goal to eradicate spirituality. It fits too well with emotion. Something logic cannot do.

Ah the vulcan approach. 

Vastet wrote:
I think that following a conception of a super natural god isn't inherrantly problematic. But the ritualization and religiousification(new word?) of the concept of a super natural god is the worst thing that can happen to spirituality. It robs it of everything that can make it good.

Doesn't that go into why dogma is bad?

Vastet wrote:
The only thing worse than a corrupt politician or a religious fanatic is both wrapped into one package. Or maybe a lawyer.

Here here. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Rave

razorphreak wrote:

Rave wrote:
No not really, I consider them both of them to be grouped together in the 'Ridiculous' section. I don't mean any offense though, so relax.

OK I'll tell you right now that your non-belief is in the ridiculous section too. Evolution? Ridiculous. Science? Delusions of cleaver hand tricks. How much of a rise would you get from that? Would you turn around and explain why you disagree or just call me an idiot? Are you starting to see my point yet from the very first post on this thread?

The products of science and the effects on everyone's lives are plain to see. Evolution is both a fact and a solid testable theory which has yet to be disproven. Forgive me if I sound condescending, but I'm above getting 'a rise' from unfounded comments like that, and I wouldn't engage in conversation anyone who said such things. I wouldn't call them an idiot, I'd just think it.

But aside from that, I don't care what people think of my beliefs (or lack thereof), whether they 'respect' them or not. Why should I? Are you perhaps suggesting that people with beliefs in counter-intuitive fantastic claims for which there is not a shred of evidence are so insecure about them that they can't.... ah, okay, now I get it.

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Rave wrote:

Rave wrote:
The products of science and the effects on everyone's lives are plain to see. Evolution is both a fact and a solid testable theory which has yet to be disproven.

If I were to say the bible has no contradictions because they can all be debunked as translation errors or misunderstandings of writting styles and/or culture, you'd laugh and go crazy with that. If I do the same with the statement you just put and put holes into evolution, you'll try to explain it away. Forgive me but there is a double standard here...

Rave wrote:
Forgive me if I sound condescending, but I'm above getting 'a rise' from unfounded comments like that, and I wouldn't engage in conversation anyone who said such things. I wouldn't call them an idiot, I'd just think it.

And what about the actual evidence to back up those claims? I've seen the websites and the posts on this very forum that call into question evolution's piece of the origin of humans yet they always seem to be dismissed. Why?

Oh, and why wouldn't you engage in a conversation?  What's wrong with trying to make someone understand?  Are you incapable of doing it (and don't give me a "don't have the time" response, that's just lazy)? 

Rave wrote:
Are you perhaps suggesting that people with beliefs in counter-intuitive fantastic claims for which there is not a shred of evidence are so insecure about them that they can't.... ah, okay, now I get it.

Hardly. And counter-intuitive to whom?

And there comes the evidence argument once again. You aren't here to ask questions; you are here to simply bash a theist. That's intelligent...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
I'm not here to bash

I'm not here to bash anyone, just talk. Like I keep saying: relax. But you are right in that I'm not here to ask questions, I entered this thread to respond to one of AmericanIdle's posts. You sort of side-tracked me.

1. The 'holes' in the current theories which make up the greater theory of evolution do not mean the rest of it is wrong. Newton's laws don't jive with Einstein's theory of Special Relativity or Quantum Mechanics - you could call these things holes in Newton's work, but NASA used newtonian physics to send astronauts to the moon. Just because Newton (and by the same token, Einstein) didn't have *all* the answers, it doesn't mean the answers were unreachable. The knowledge of and understanding of how the universe works is constantly increasing. I conject that just as we have learned what causes lightning, that the Earth is spherical, and that E = mc², we will one day be able to fill in the missing details of the evolution of life.

2. I would, and regularly do explain the theories of evolution and the Big Bang to the best of my ability to those who have been misinformed or are confused, so long as they are the sort of person who will actually listen and is open to new ideas whether they eventually decide to accept them or not. Talking to someone who dismisses science from the start as 'cleaver [sic] hand tricks' would really just be a waste of breath.

3. The existence of something one cannot see, hear, touch, smell, taste, detect by any sort of instrumentation, observe the effects of or infer from any established natural laws is counter-intuitive to me at least (as is rising from the dead, virgin conception, turning water to wine, reincarnation, and eternal souls). It is counter to my intuition and I fail to see how anyone would think differently, but to my continued puzzlement there are many people who do.

4. The 'evidence argument'? I'm really lost for words here. I have no idea what you mean.

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Rave wrote: I'm not here to

Rave wrote:
I'm not here to bash anyone, just talk. Like I keep saying: relax. But you are right in that I'm not here to ask questions, I entered this thread to respond to one of AmericanIdle's posts. You sort of side-tracked me.

Well what you had said made me take notice, which is why I responded directly to you.  If you are not here to ask questions then you are here to assert a position.  My point of my initial post was to ask, why must you do this?  Why must it be asserted that you are right and I'm wrong and any alternative explanation will be regarded as "delusional" since it does not have the proof you require?  What's more is after you make your position known, you offer no explanation or question to me about mine; all I see is "this is my stance and if you want me to believe you, prove it" to which I keep trying to remind, I'm not asking you to believe it, just know where I'm coming from. 

Rave wrote:
1. The 'holes' in the current theories which make up the greater theory of evolution do not mean the rest of it is wrong.

I didn't say evolution as a means to explain what happens in our world is wrong, I'm saying that science offers explanations as to our existance that are questionable.  You make reference to other "theories" that have nothing to do with humanity so I can't compare apples and oranges here.  I'm talking about the theories to humanity, not to how our world works.

Rave wrote:
2. I would, and regularly do explain the theories of evolution and the Big Bang to the best of my ability to those who have been misinformed or are confused, so long as they are the sort of person who will actually listen and is open to new ideas whether they eventually decide to accept them or not. Talking to someone who dismisses science from the start as 'cleaver [sic] hand tricks' would really just be a waste of breath.

Sorry I did mean "clever".  Forgot to proofread.

I didn't say that was my stance.  I cannot speak for every person on this planet but I have in the past and am willing to in the future to sit down and discuss any subject.  I cannot say I know everything so perhaps you know something that others have not told me in the past.  Perhaps you can explain it in a way that can help me see it in a way that you do that I've never seen it before.  Now where it would get interesting however is if I told you MY understanding, would you give me the same respect I gave to you?  I cannot say you since I've not read your previous posts however by the way some others have approached me on this forum, forgive me if I seem skeptical.

Rave wrote:
3. The existence of something one cannot see, hear, touch, smell, taste, detect by any sort of instrumentation, observe the effects of or infer from any established natural laws is counter-intuitive to me at least (as is rising from the dead, virgin conception, turning water to wine, reincarnation, and eternal souls). It is counter to my intuition and I fail to see how anyone would think differently, but to my continued puzzlement there are many people who do.

Because you have not seen it before does not mean it doesn't exist.  Other people believe it for many reasons.  Some of which are silly (I am Jesus, Satan, the anti-Christ all rolled up into one) or inherited (I grew up with it so it's all I know) however what I wonder, can you truly dismiss every person that claims to be a believer in the same way you did the previous?  Is it not possible that the next person may actually present you with words that give new understanding?  The next person may be the unexplainable? My point is are you that bitter you must judge everyone based upon a previous experience?

Rave wrote:
4. The 'evidence argument'? I'm really lost for words here. I have no idea what you mean.

Have I helped in understanding what I mean within this post? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Why

razorphreak wrote:

Why must it be asserted that you are right and I'm wrong and any alternative explanation will be regarded as "delusional" since it does not have the proof you require? What's more is after you make your position known, you offer no explanation or question to me about mine; all I see is "this is my stance and if you want me to believe you, prove it" to which I keep trying to remind, I'm not asking you to believe it, just know where I'm coming from.

I didn't say anything about my beliefs, and I didn't directly address yours, so I didn't say they you were wrong.

I never used the word delusional or deluded. When you ask 'why must you do this?' I think you may be lumping me and every other atheist together as if we all do. Looking at my posts in this thread I don't think I've made any comments to suggest I do. As for my incredulity regarding others' beliefs, it usually comes from they themselves offering no evidence or sound philosophical argument for that which they believe - not because they believe in something for which I myself have not so far come up with any convincing evidence for.

I think you're reading too much into my words when you infer my 'stance'. I was being courteous in responding to your comments directed at mine. No offence but I don't really want to pursue a conversation into your beliefs, I just wanted to respond to AmericanIdle's comment. However, I will ask you why you think it's important for me to know what your position is, or if/why you think you are entitled to respect for your beliefs? To paraphrase someone I forgot the name of, I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't mean I have to respect what you believe.

razorphreak wrote:
Rave wrote:
1. The 'holes' in the current theories which make up the greater theory of evolution do not mean the rest of it is wrong.

I didn't say evolution as a means to explain what happens in our world is wrong, I'm saying that science offers explanations as to our existance that are questionable. You make reference to other "theories" that have nothing to do with humanity so I can't compare apples and oranges here. I'm talking about the theories to humanity, not to how our world works.

And I wasn't referring to what you believe about evolution, or making any assumptions about your other beliefs. You said that I would try to 'explain away' any holes, I was correcting you with what I do think of the missing details, and providing a short argument to back up my position, as you suggested I do.

razorphreak wrote:
Rave wrote:
2. I would, and regularly do explain the theories of evolution and the Big Bang to the best of my ability to those who have been misinformed or are confused, so long as they are the sort of person who will actually listen and is open to new ideas whether they eventually decide to accept them or not. Talking to someone who dismisses science from the start as 'cleaver [sic] hand tricks' would really just be a waste of breath.

Sorry I did mean "clever". Forgot to proofread.

I didn't say that was my stance. I cannot speak for every person on this planet but I have in the past and am willing to in the future to sit down and discuss any subject. I cannot say I know everything so perhaps you know something that others have not told me in the past. Perhaps you can explain it in a way that can help me see it in a way that you do that I've never seen it before. Now where it would get interesting however is if I told you MY understanding, would you give me the same respect I gave to you? I cannot say you since I've not read your previous posts however by the way some others have approached me on this forum, forgive me if I seem skeptical.

Again, I didn't address your beliefs, I was continuing with the 'what if I said' line of thought you began, sorry if I wasn't clear. And again, I respect your right to believe what you want, but I reserve the right to think whatever I want about those beliefs. If I wanted you to listen to my beliefs I would certainly listen to yours. I often ask people why they believe what they believe. Occasionally I get an interesting answer. I think your defensive attitude is probably warranted on this forum and I'm not bothered by it, so don't worry about the scepticism.

razorphreak wrote:
Rave wrote:
3. The existence of something one cannot see, hear, touch, smell, taste, detect by any sort of instrumentation, observe the effects of or infer from any established natural laws is counter-intuitive to me at least (as is rising from the dead, virgin conception, turning water to wine, reincarnation, and eternal souls). It is counter to my intuition and I fail to see how anyone would think differently, but to my continued puzzlement there are many people who do.

Because you have not seen it before does not mean it doesn't exist. Other people believe it for many reasons. Some of which are silly (I am Jesus, Satan, the anti-Christ all rolled up into one) or inherited (I grew up with it so it's all I know) however what I wonder, can you truly dismiss every person that claims to be a believer in the same way you did the previous? Is it not possible that the next person may actually present you with words that give new understanding? The next person may be the unexplainable? My point is are you that bitter you must judge everyone based upon a previous experience?

Just because you can't see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, taste it, detect it by any sort of instrumentation, observe the effects of it or infer it from any established natural laws, doesn't mean it does exist.

My answer to your question is no, I can't. There is a big difference between someone who believes in a supernatural element without evidence and someone who has no regard for the scientific method. I'm not exactly sure what 'previous experience' you're talking about, but I'm not bitter and I am open to new ideas. If someone presented me with evidence and explanation of that evidence that supported the existence of a supernatural element to the universe, that was to the same level that I require for all of my other beliefs then yes, I would believe there is a supernatural element to the universe. I have no idea what said evidence might be, as I can't think how the supernatural could be presented naturally, so I can't tell you exactly what I would require.

Are you open to changing your mind? I would hope that you are, but I doubt you are actively trying to find what would make you, just as I'm not.

razorphreak wrote:
Rave wrote:
4. The 'evidence argument'? I'm really lost for words here. I have no idea what you mean.

Have I helped in understanding what I mean within this post?

Yes, but I won't be abandoning my requirement of evidence for what I believe.

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Rave wrote: As for my

Rave wrote:
As for my incredulity regarding others' beliefs, it usually comes from they themselves offering no evidence or sound philosophical argument for that which they believe - not because they believe in something for which I myself have not so far come up with any convincing evidence for.

OK then I've gotta re-ask what I stated in my original post to you directly, without asking a theist to prove their beliefs, "I'd be curious as to what kind of discussions we'd actually have."  Is that at all possible or you do believe that it will always revert back to a "prove it" stance?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Vastet

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
But doing it to a preacher on the street? I see no disrespect. Same goes with a scientologist, though to be honest they require a different approach than most religions. Calling them a fool gets shrugged off by their heavily paid for indoctrination.

I'm not sure I follow.  I agree scientologists are in a leauge of their own but you'd apporach a Christian pastor and tell him "your religion is a joke"?  

I didn't mean the word as a title, but as a descriptive. Someone dressed in robes and wearing a cross but keeping to themselves I'd pass like everyone else. Someone standing on a soap box preaching to the masses however, I'd step in and say it was a joke.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: OK then

razorphreak wrote:
OK then I've gotta re-ask what I stated in my original post to you directly, without asking a theist to prove their beliefs, "I'd be curious as to what kind of discussions we'd actually have." Is that at all possible or you do believe that it will always revert back to a "prove it" stance?

When I talk to someone who believes in the supernatural or in pseudosciences I usually ask why they believe what they do, how they came to have those beliefs, and how they manage to reconcile those beliefs with the rest of their lives. Then I walk them through the refutation of their answers (if they are logically flawed or based on incorrect information) until I get to the reason why they believe it - it usually ends up with 'I just believe it' / faith, or they change their minds, or go away thinking about it - but I occasionally get an interesting answer, which I then think about. The hardest part of the conversation is asking for the person's own beliefs, and their own original reasons for believing - I won't accept answers they make up on the spot or standard apologetics that they're just pulling off a website. Unfortunately, most of the time people only believe what they say they do because they were raised with it - they never made any decision themselves, the same as they didn't choose which language to learn when they were babies.

I go to the "prove it"/"give me a good philosophical argument for it" stance only when someone tries to make me believe something or when their argument relies on presuppositions that they haven't shown their validity yet. So this happens in most of conversations, but I don't ask for it straight away - only if it's required for the argument they want to make. i.e. if they want to use the bible as any sort of evidence.

When talking to someone with beliefs you don't agree with or that you think are bad for society an aggressive attitude isn't going to allow a proper conversation - neither side will be thinking properly. But, I do take the blunt approach. If someone wants to know my opinion, or if it is relevant in the conversation then I won't sugar-coat it, and I won't accept flawed arguments.

What sort of discussion do you think would be worth having?

And from my last post: Why do you think people have the right to respect for their beliefs?

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Rave wrote: Unfortunately,

Rave wrote:
Unfortunately, most of the time people only believe what they say they do because they were raised with it - they never made any decision themselves, the same as they didn't choose which language to learn when they were babies.

People who don't persue their own faith and took it on the word of another person.  I know many of those people well. 

Rave wrote:
I go to the "prove it"/"give me a good philosophical argument for it" stance only when someone tries to make me believe something or when their argument relies on presuppositions that they haven't shown their validity yet. So this happens in most of conversations, but I don't ask for it straight away - only if it's required for the argument they want to make. i.e. if they want to use the bible as any sort of evidence.

You almost seem to be in a contradicting or hyprocritical state with that.  You ask for them to describe their faith (putting aside the "you must believe" types for a second) and you won't let them use the bible?  If I asked you to tell me why you trust the argument of evolution, will you not bring in some scientific paper/book into the agrument?  See my point?  If you want a FULL explanation the bible will be there.  If I want a FULL explanation of evolution, you'll have to use science.

Rave wrote:
When talking to someone with beliefs you don't agree with or that you think are bad for society an aggressive attitude isn't going to allow a proper conversation - neither side will be thinking properly. But, I do take the blunt approach. If someone wants to know my opinion, or if it is relevant in the conversation then I won't sugar-coat it, and I won't accept flawed arguments.

OK why does it have to be an aggressive conversation?  This is what I don't understand about RRS - the confrontational stance against theism (and don't kid, it's 99% against Christianity).

Rave wrote:
And from my last post: Why do you think people have the right to respect for their beliefs?

You didn't tell me what kind of conversation.  How come?  Does a conversation about someone's faith not exist without a "prove it" question?

As to why people have the right to respect...do you not have the right to respect to not believe?  I believe you do so why is it that I am not given the same right by RRS and others using "aggressive" approaches (I'm not talking about law now but how individuals interact).  I'm wondering, does this boil down to do people have to earn respect or should respect be a given until lost?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: People

razorphreak wrote:
People who don't persue their own faith and took it on the word of another person. I know many of those people well.

What do you say to them?

razorphreak wrote:
You almost seem to be in a contradicting or hyprocritical state with that. You ask for them to describe their faith (putting aside the "you must believe" types for a second) and you won't let them use the bible? If I asked you to tell me why you trust the argument of evolution, will you not bring in some scientific paper/book into the agrument? See my point? If you want a FULL explanation the bible will be there. If I want a FULL explanation of evolution, you'll have to use science.

There is a difference between describing one's faith and defending it. Yes, I understand that to describe one's faith, one would need to rely on the bible for explanation, however to defend it, one should have proof outside of the bible.

Comparing evolution to this is a bad analogy. Most religious beliefs can ONLY be argued from a philosophical standpoint; science simply isn't part of it. Every person, religious or not uses science everyday. I do not use religion everday.

Using the bible to explain your position on something is fine as long as you understand that 10 different theists can quote the same 10 passages from the bible and arrive at 10 different conclusions.

Rave wrote:
When talking to someone with beliefs you don't agree with or that you think are bad for society an aggressive attitude isn't going to allow a proper conversation - neither side will be thinking properly. But, I do take the blunt approach. If someone wants to know my opinion, or if it is relevant in the conversation then I won't sugar-coat it, and I won't accept flawed arguments.

razorphreak wrote:
OK why does it have to be an aggressive conversation? This is what I don't understand about RRS - the confrontational stance against theism (and don't kid, it's 99% against Christianity).

Being blunt does not equate to aggressive. As far as this website goes there are a few things to consider:

  1. Have you read some of the posts by theists? Sorry but being told that I am "fuckng stuped" generally does not ilicit a friendly response from me. Sadly, the majority of theists that come here are quite ignorant and arrogant and although the responses to them may start out rational, the discussions quickly deteriorate based on the theist not the atheist. Naturally, there are cases of the opposite happens, but this is not the majority.
  2. As far as it being 99% against christianity, well, look at the theists that come here. The majority are christians. The primary base of members is from the US, which is, what? 88% christian. It makes sense, then, that most arguments are targeted toward christians.

Rave wrote:
And from my last post: Why do you think people have the right to respect for their beliefs?

razorphreak wrote:
You didn't tell me what kind of conversation. How come? Does a conversation about someone's faith not exist without a "prove it" question?

No, it can be educational - to a point. The problem is that, while I like you, you must understand that your faith is unique to you. I enjoy discussions with you about the bible because you are educated on it and you do not use it to justify socially incorrect behavior. Other theists do not share the same viewpoints that you do but will use the same book you do to defend them. Now, I can tell them that they do not know what they are talking about, but do you really think they will listen to me?

You see, many of us see religion as quite detrimental to society and many of us were theists at one time. So it is quite natural for us to assume a few things: Theists come here to prostelytize, theists have little knowledge about atheists, theists have little knowledge about science. Science gets harped on a lot here simply because many theists will fill in their lack of understanding with god/faith. This is poor education, not a good basis for belief.

razorphreak wrote:
As to why people have the right to respect...do you not have the right to respect to not believe? I believe you do so why is it that I am not given the same right by RRS and others using "aggressive" approaches (I'm not talking about law now but how individuals interact). I'm wondering, does this boil down to do people have to earn respect or should respect be a given until lost?

IMO - respect is earned. I do not have a degree in psychology so I cannot tell you the specifics of why, but respect should be earned and most often is. When meeting a perfect stranger, we will be hesitant and guarded until a point of trust is established. Respect most often follows - in degrees. I have had bosses that I have had to obey, but did not respect. I have met people others would consider "bums" for whom I have a great deal of respect.

My original statement still stands: As an atheist, no one gives me respect. I earn it. The same should apply for theists. You and I have developed respect for each other based on the comments each of us has made. Also, as you have said, you have refrained from calling me an evil, immoral person and I have refrained from calling you a delusional nutcase. LOL

Sorry this post is so long...I just felt that it required more than just a one-liner of an answer.  (Doing this goes against everything I was taught about writing, by the way!  LOL) 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: razorphreak

jce wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
People who don't persue their own faith and took it on the word of another person. I know many of those people well.

What do you say to them?

Nothing.  I assume nothing until they speak.  When they do, as gently as I can, correct their mis-statements. 

jce wrote:
There is a difference between describing one's faith and defending it. Yes, I understand that to describe one's faith, one would need to rely on the bible for explanation, however to defend it, one should have proof outside of the bible.

Proof outside the bible on what or of what exactly?  God?  Jesus?  Is that a question for me to present something tangible to you or more so to prove to you why I believe?

jce wrote:
Comparing evolution to this is a bad analogy. Most religious beliefs can ONLY be argued from a philosophical standpoint; science simply isn't part of it. Every person, religious or not uses science everyday. I do not use religion everday.

But since science can and is proven to be wrong, accepting what scientists call "proof" is done so with a certain amount of faith too no?  My favorite example is that of the dinosaurs.  If it was accepted that T-Rex was a hunter, what's to say they were right?  If it's proven later that the animal was indeed a scavenger, what's to say that's correct? 

jce wrote:
Using the bible to explain your position on something is fine as long as you understand that 10 different theists can quote the same 10 passages from the bible and arrive at 10 different conclusions.

Then the next question should be where did those conclusions come from.

jce wrote:
Being blunt does not equate to aggressive.

And what do you call being called "delusional" or mentally wrong in the head? 

jce wrote:
As far as this website goes there are a few things to consider:

  1. Have you read some of the posts by theists? Sorry but being told that I am "fuckng stuped" generally does not ilicit a friendly response from me. Sadly, the majority of theists that come here are quite ignorant and arrogant and although the responses to them may start out rational, the discussions quickly deteriorate based on the theist not the atheist. Naturally, there are cases of the opposite happens, but this is not the majority.
  2. As far as it being 99% against christianity, well, look at the theists that come here. The majority are christians. The primary base of members is from the US, which is, what? 88% christian. It makes sense, then, that most arguments are targeted toward christians.

As to point 2, yea I know.  Of course remember this site was completely unknown to I'd venture to say 99% of the theists that post here now until it was decided to do an ANTI-CHRISTIAN act.

As to the hate mail that Brian and others receive, first all I can say is you have my SUPPORT against them.  This is why I'd ask them where does their understanding of what being a Christian comes from.  If it is based upon dogma, upon a preacher telling you this is how it is, or worse, the classic "raised with it", I would first say their point of view is rather limited.  Second I would begin to wonder why if they would consider themselves Christian would not have the understanding as not just I but many do; basically I would test them.  And test.  And test again.  Pray and test (ok you get the idea).  If after all that (and I'm not talking about in one night) you still get people asking for Brian's head (or any atheist for that matter) on a plate, well...as it is written, it is not a good thing to have immoral brothers and sisters near (1 Cor 5:11).  I don't know who they are but any so called Christian issuing death threats is someone who I would consider slandering the word of God and it's important, for me anyway, to understand why. 

jce wrote:
No, it can be educational - to a point. The problem is that, while I like you, you must understand that your faith is unique to you. I enjoy discussions with you about the bible because you are educated on it and you do not use it to justify socially incorrect behavior. Other theists do not share the same viewpoints that you do but will use the same book you do to defend them. Now, I can tell them that they do not know what they are talking about, but do you really think they will listen to me?

Probably not.  Now flip the coin over and reverse that scenario and tell me if you think it would be any different for me and an atheist. 

jce wrote:
You see, many of us see religion as quite detrimental to society and many of us were theists at one time. So it is quite natural for us to assume a few things: Theists come here to prostelytize, theists have little knowledge about atheists, theists have little knowledge about science. Science gets harped on a lot here simply because many theists will fill in their lack of understanding with god/faith. This is poor education, not a good basis for belief.

I agree but is it good to be pre-judgmental upon someone on an individual basis who hasn't yet said a thing? 

jce wrote:
IMO - respect is earned. I do not have a degree in psychology so I cannot tell you the specifics of why, but respect should be earned and most often is. When meeting a perfect stranger, we will be hesitant and guarded until a point of trust is established. Respect most often follows - in degrees. I have had bosses that I have had to obey, but did not respect. I have met people others would consider "bums" for whom I have a great deal of respect.

My original statement still stands: As an atheist, no one gives me respect. I earn it. The same should apply for theists. You and I have developed respect for each other based on the comments each of us has made. Also, as you have said, you have refrained from calling me an evil, immoral person and I have refrained from calling you a delusional nutcase. LOL

LOL.  Believe me, I have no cause to call you or anyone else, including the king (interesting video on the pregnancy) evil or immoral.

My dear trust me when I say I completely understand but do not agree.  I would rather show you respect as a person and by your actions you will lose my respect if it gets to that point.  Everyone is guarded to a degree but there must be some form of respect to them as a person and a small degree of trust that they respect you.  Do you think it a good thing that society would rather be distant (stuck in an iPod) to one another instead of more involved with each other (the old helping the little old lady across the street scenario)?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Nothing.

razorphreak wrote:
Nothing. I assume nothing until they speak. When they do, as gently as I can, correct their mis-statements.

Fair enough! This is good advice and probably should be followed a bit more closely by everyone.

razorphreak wrote:
Proof outside the bible on what or of what exactly? God? Jesus? Is that a question for me to present something tangible to you or more so to prove to you why I believe?

Good question. I guess it depends on what they are trying to prove to me in the first place. Yes, if they are saying Jesus absolutely existed. No, if they are simply stating why they believe. There is a difference and a lot of it has to do with how forcefully they are trying to shove something in my face.

razorphreak wrote:
But since science can and is proven to be wrong, accepting what scientists call "proof" is done so with a certain amount of faith too no? My favorite example is that of the dinosaurs. If it was accepted that T-Rex was a hunter, what's to say they were right? If it's proven later that the animal was indeed a scavenger, what's to say that's correct?

I understand what you are saying, but no I do not accept what any one scientist says "on faith". I am a skeptic at heart so I look for supporting evidence and studies. You are right, though, in saying science can be proven wrong. The difference is that science will correct itself for the sake of knowledge. I simply do not see most religions correcting themselves in terms of dogma/doctrine. Plus, when was the last time the bible was updated? LOL

razorphreak wrote:
Then the next question should be where did those conclusions come from.

Point taken, but then how do you refute it if they all subscribe to different dogma?

razorphreak wrote:
And what do you call being called "delusional" or mentally wrong in the head?

I would call that someone behaving like that an assbag. Some atheists are, you know. As are some theists. Thankfully, not all are this way, which is why you and I can have this conversation.

razorphreak wrote:
As to point 2, yea I know. Of course remember this site was completely unknown to I'd venture to say 99% of the theists that post here now until it was decided to do an ANTI-CHRISTIAN act.

Good point.  Yeah, I got nothing for this one.  I didn't participate in it nor have I watched any of the videos.  Not my cup of tea but I think it was designed to be a joke.

razorphreak wrote:
As to the hate mail that Brian and others receive, first all I can say is you have my SUPPORT against them. This is why I'd ask them where does their understanding of what being a Christian comes from. If it is based upon dogma, upon a preacher telling you this is how it is, or worse, the classic "raised with it", I would first say their point of view is rather limited. Second I would begin to wonder why if they would consider themselves Christian would not have the understanding as not just I but many do; basically I would test them. And test. And test again. Pray and test (ok you get the idea). If after all that (and I'm not talking about in one night) you still get people asking for Brian's head (or any atheist for that matter) on a plate, well...as it is written, it is not a good thing to have immoral brothers and sisters near (1 Cor 5:11). I don't know who they are but any so called Christian issuing death threats is someone who I would consider slandering the word of God and it's important, for me anyway, to understand why.

You realize you are giving way too much credit to theists that are simply interested in spewing hate, don't you? But, I have to agree that we should make an effort to ask and try to enourage some understanding.

razorphreak wrote:
Probably not. Now flip the coin over and reverse that scenario and tell me if you think it would be any different for me and an atheist.

Probably not. Maybe. I don't know. I listen and there are others that do, but probably not the majority.

razorphreak wrote:
I agree but is it good to be pre-judgmental upon someone on an individual basis who hasn't yet said a thing?

Ahhh...but they do say a thing. Actually, they say quite a few things. LOL There are a few other theists on this site that do not get bashed on simply because they are not arrogant and ignorant of facts. Their faith is respected because it is what it is. Then there are those that seem to have little respect for themselves or their beliefs and they do tend to get knocked around a bit. In the end, this is a predominately atheist website and there are going to be those that disagree with anyone of faith so those discussions will go nowhere. That doesn't mean we should stop trying, though.


razorphreak wrote:
LOL. Believe me, I have no cause to call you or anyone else, including the king (interesting video on the pregnancy) evil or immoral.

My dear trust me when I say I completely understand but do not agree. I would rather show you respect as a person and by your actions you will lose my respect if it gets to that point. Everyone is guarded to a degree but there must be some form of respect to them as a person and a small degree of trust that they respect you. Do you think it a good thing that society would rather be distant (stuck in an iPod) to one another instead of more involved with each other (the old helping the little old lady across the street scenario)?

Well, I guess if those are my choices then I will pick people being involved. LOL Again, though, this is not something that necessarily comes from religion. It is simply good manners and everyone should exercise them.

Funny story:  There were a couple of guys I work with taunting me about my atheism today and went so far as to call me 'satan lover'. I did not initiate the conversation so I smiled and said nothing because the comment did not dignify a response and I simply did not have the time or inclination to discuss the issue with them. Now, aside from that it is fair to say that I am well regarded at work, considered to be intelligent and diligent (to the point that I get overwhelmed by being known as the person that can "get it done right&quotEye-wink so it puzzles me that they would say something so very outrageous.

Oh well. The day wasn't all bad. I got to come here and read your post that made me smile and think and I got to see a funny pineapple picture posted by BGH. Life is good (if you want it to be).


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Good question.

jce wrote:
Good question. I guess it depends on what they are trying to prove to me in the first place. Yes, if they are saying Jesus absolutely existed. No, if they are simply stating why they believe. There is a difference and a lot of it has to do with how forcefully they are trying to shove something in my face.

I agree.  There is a right way and a wrong way to approach people in reference to faith; the wrong way is to force it. 

jce wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but no I do not accept what any one scientist says "on faith". I am a skeptic at heart so I look for supporting evidence and studies. You are right, though, in saying science can be proven wrong. The difference is that science will correct itself for the sake of knowledge. I simply do not see most religions correcting themselves in terms of dogma/doctrine. Plus, when was the last time the bible was updated? LOL

I kinda knew you'd say that.  Two things: 1. Science "correcting itself" is still subjective.  2. Religion, specifically Christian dogmas, can correct themselves with the bible.  They don't because of what I believe has come down to two reasons - they are a business not a religious institution and power struggles.  Course once we get into the issue of the bible we bring up a whole new set of points starting with my point of the bible has not needed to be updated.

jce wrote:
Point taken, but then how do you refute it if they all subscribe to different dogma?

Using the bible. Every dogma has points that differentiate themselves for no reason other than to be different.  The bible 99% of the time has the answer to refute those points.  The other 1% of the time it's the bible + reference tools.

jce wrote:
I would call that someone behaving like that an assbag. Some atheists are, you know. As are some theists. Thankfully, not all are this way, which is why you and I can have this conversation.

Thank goodness. 

jce wrote:
Good point. Yeah, I got nothing for this one. I didn't participate in it nor have I watched any of the videos. Not my cup of tea but I think it was designed to be a joke.

It's the only reason that brought me here.  After spending some time here finding out quite a bit, I'm starting to wonder if my time here is almost done... 

jce wrote:
You realize you are giving way too much credit to theists that are simply interested in spewing hate, don't you? But, I have to agree that we should make an effort to ask and try to enourage some understanding.

Gotta hope they can told the words that would make them understand what they are doing is wrong. 

jce wrote:
I listen and there are others that do, but probably not the majority.

I'm glad to have met you and several others that's for sure. 

jce wrote:
In the end, this is a predominately atheist website and there are going to be those that disagree with anyone of faith so those discussions will go nowhere. That doesn't mean we should stop trying, though.

That's why I suppose this thread exists now.

jce wrote:
Well, I guess if those are my choices then I will pick people being involved. LOL Again, though, this is not something that necessarily comes from religion. It is simply good manners and everyone should exercise them.

Granted...but I wonder then, why in the word is society going down the other route?

jce wrote:
Funny story: There were a couple of guys I work with taunting me about my atheism today and went so far as to call me 'satan lover'. I did not initiate the conversation so I smiled and said nothing because the comment did not dignify a response and I simply did not have the time or inclination to discuss the issue with them. Now, aside from that it is fair to say that I am well regarded at work, considered to be intelligent and diligent (to the point that I get overwhelmed by being known as the person that can "get it done right&quotEye-wink so it puzzles me that they would say something so very outrageous.

I'm really sorry that happened.  Ignorance and being judgmental tends to show the worst of people.   Now by that they do not deserve respect until they redeem themselves.  But do you take that stance with everyone else is the point I'm trying to make.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Sorry about my absence! I

Sorry about my absence! I didn't run away, I've been having some internet problems Smiling Luckily jce filled in pretty much everything I was going to say for me!

Just to add to the question about what the conversation would be about, as jce said it would mostly be for education, and also to learn more about the person (if you wanted to get to know them better). I sometimes enjoy learning about the religions of people I know that I'm not familiar with, but only for the same reason I'm interested in what people like the Incas and Aztecs and Vikings and Druids of ancient Britain believed. Unfortunately Christianity Islam and Judaism hold no real interest to me as many other religions do. The only reason I would want to learn more of them would be to understand what the people close to me thought.

razorphreak wrote:
I'm wondering, does this boil down to do people have to earn respect or should respect be a given until lost?

Respect is something every person has to earn. It's not free, and not everyone deserves it, but every decent human being (imho) should allow another a chance. Also, respect is different from tolerance. I tolerate religious beliefs in the people around me, even though I think they're stupid (the beliefs, not the people... usually). I don't think you can actually respect a belief at all. I give respect to people based on their actions and their words - and their motives. I respect someone for bringing happiness to others with no expectanc of return, or for dedicating their lives to a cause that will help advance society or for sacrificing their opportunities to nurse an invalid family member. I respect doctors who put themselves in danger working with Medecins sans Frontiers but I don't respect religious missionaries going to provide education and medical assistance in order to spread their religion as well.

But what about simply believing something demands respect? I believe that 3rd world debt should be cancelled and that's a nice thing to believe, but you won't see me at a demonstration or anything. I believe in helping the less fortunate, but I don't donate to charities because right now I'm more concerned with becoming financially independent myself (although I did buy a homeless guy a sandwich the other day). I could afford to donate regularly but I don't because I'd rather keep the money. What's to respect about that? And if I did donate money, would that be respectful because of my action or because I just believed that it should be done?

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Rave wrote: The only reason

Rave wrote:
The only reason I would want to learn more of them would be to understand what the people close to me thought.

Good reason. 

I can only hope it doesn't come attached with prejudgments about the person because of that faith... 

Rave wrote:
Respect is something every person has to earn. It's not free, and not everyone deserves it, but every decent human being (imho) should allow another a chance. Also, respect is different from tolerance. I tolerate religious beliefs in the people around me, even though I think they're stupid (the beliefs, not the people... usually). I don't think you can actually respect a belief at all.

OK my question then, and it can be taken as an open question to all, if every person must earn respect, that means that person had no respect from you when you first met them, correct?  How long before you give respect?  How much do you give?  Since you say you must give it and it must be earned, is it earned in degrees? By scale?  Is it an all or nothing?

Because I believe that every person should be given respect and by their actions it is determined if they keep it or lose it, all or nothing, I find it easier first to trust and second not to approach anyone with that chip on the shoulder (living in the past).  I'm wondering why you think that wrong.

Rave wrote:
But what about simply believing something demands respect? I believe that 3rd world debt should be cancelled and that's a nice thing to believe, but you won't see me at a demonstration or anything.

Economics...haha I'll just stick to balancing my check book first. 

Rave wrote:
I believe in helping the less fortunate, but I don't donate to charities because right now I'm more concerned with becoming financially independent myself (although I did buy a homeless guy a sandwich the other day). I could afford to donate regularly but I don't because I'd rather keep the money. What's to respect about that? And if I did donate money, would that be respectful because of my action or because I just believed that it should be done?

You know I don't donate any money either.  I don't because I believe that the system in place by the "giving" organizations is corrupt and unfairly determines who is in need.  How can you trust a non-profit organization that pays it's CEO 400-600,000 a year?  When you see people needing a new house thanks to Katrina and the combined salaries of the "board" makes almost 2 million a year, something is quite wrong.  Granted I don't expect them to work for free (every laborer deserves their wages), but 400,000 a year?  That's the American Red Cross by the way..a company with almost 3 billion in income.

So instead of donating money, donate time.  How you said you bought someone a meal...why not do that every time?  When they ask you for money, tell them you don't have any cash but if they really are hungry, you'll buy them a meal from the closest fast food around the corner, just asking them to stay put.  You can tell who does and who doesn't need help. 

Don't want to go nuts with that?  How bout going to the homeless shelter, battered womens shelter, volunteer?  My point here is time is more valuable to someone in need than your money.  Helping them with their lives helps them much more than giving them your loose change in your car.  Next time you hear of a house that got fire damage in the winter because they left the heater under a blanket or something like that, go to the house, ask them what they need to rebuild (like paint, sheet rock, etc.), and go buy it for them.  And if you've got the skill, help them put it up.  That won't get you respect from someone else but it shows you respect your neighbor.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Personally, I give everyone

Personally, I give everyone respect. It's easy enough to lose, though:

The drugged up man barely able to stand who walks into Subway and falls on a small child, terrifying the mother? He loses a whole bunch of respect right off the bat. I stand him up and walk him firmly out of the shop and do not let him back in. But I still respect him enough to ensure that I do not hurt him, and to check that he's OK once he's outside. So, he hasn't lost all my respect. Or, perhaps that was out of my own self-respect, so I could hold my head up and not think of myself as an asshole.

The person emailing me bible passages in ALL CAPS in an attempt to convert me? Same thing: he has failed to even try to understand me, he believes that these passages he is pasting are crushing blows that will bring me to the light, he is wasting my time and his own. He is still going to get respect: but his arguments? No. I physically cannot respect his arguments until he argues on a level that I can understand and relate to. They might be awesome arguments that I just don't understand because of my worldview, but if I don't, then I can't respect them.

The atheist, throwing emphatic facts and exclamation marks at a theist, believing them to be crushing blows that should bring the theist into the light... is the exact same.

So, to answer your original question, what would theists and nontheists say to eachother if they felt no need to convert: I think they would do as I am trying to do, and as the people listed in my signature are doing, and try to understand eachother, purely because talking (and arguing!) with people is fun and because it's a stimulating intellectual exercise to understand other worldviews.

That is, instead of trying to convert eachother, we'd try to understand eachother, in an effort to better understand eachother and ourselves. I think that this is one of the common themes in all the posts by those theists in my "set T".

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: One

razorphreak wrote:
One thing I really want everyone to know, understand, and accept (atheists and theists) - not one person on this planet can prove God exists.

Assumptions contained herein:

1. That there's one “god.”

2. That said “god” is supernatural, undetectable; therefore that a world with “him” and without are indiscernible from one another.

3. That no one has the proof (unlikely they wouldn't speak up, but an assumption nonetheless).

4. That said “god” contradicts both the old and new testament depictions of an objectively tangible “god,” manifest at various times as a physical entity, a corporeal incarnation, in timely natural events, in seemingly supernatural events.

razorphreak wrote:
No possible proof can be offered to another individual to believe.  God makes himself known to every person on an individual basis.  Until you are called, you will remain in a state of disbelief, which is OK too because just as those in the time of Jesus that did not believe, there are those who were meant to believe and others who aren't.

Which again contradicts scriptural depictions of “god” as a very active and confrontational entity. I know “faith” is premise of the religion, but it wasn't always so according to the bible. Since it places it in the subjective, it leaves no room to prove anything objectively (which seems to have been the point), and no means to discern a genuine experience from, say, the onset of schizophrenia. The mentally ill are capable of being just as certain about the apparitions they experience, and many of them are religious in nature.

Once a person becomes aware of an idea that not only relies wholly on the subjective for its manifestation, and the more a person wants a conclusion to be so, the more susceptible they become to problems like confirmation bias. That few people are raised unaware of religious principles, there is again, no way to discern a the self-pacifying of emotional turmoil with mythological platitudes from a genuine experience. Since we're talking about the subjective realm, I'll say that it's up to the individual to figure out which he or she is experiencing.

razorphreak wrote:
Once we all accept this, understanding that I cannot convert you, and you cannot de-convert me, we'll all live much more happy, co-existing lives (and yes this is biblically supported).

Religious people are involved in politics, and that affects all of us. That's the only reason I left my state of contented apathy toward religion. I couldn't care less about prying the bible from your fingers.

[...]

 


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Am I the only one who's

Am I the only one who's answered his question rather than offtopically leaping on his assumptions?

The question as I understand it is "if we didn't have the need to convert, what other stuff would we talk about?"

In light of which... oh, the beautiful irony of the answers. Smiling

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
DewiMorgan wrote: Am I the

DewiMorgan wrote:
Am I the only one who's answered his question rather than offtopically leaping on his assumptions? The question as I understand it is "if we didn't have the need to convert, what other stuff would we talk about?" In light of which... oh, the beautiful irony of the answers. Smiling

You weren't the only one. I refused to go off topic on this one too. 


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
So you didn't - though you

So you didn't - though you never answered it, just restated the question. What would your guess be, about what we'd talk about?

Shame it got threadjacked, because it had the possibility to be just as nice a thread as the "what are your hopes?" thread Smiling It could all be people suggesting the things that would interest them in a friendly, open discussion between non-combative theists and atheists.

And then, maybe, we could use it as a source for cool conversation topics about stuff that isn't bashing eachother!

But maybe I'm hoping too much.

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Razorphreak and I discussed

Razorphreak and I discussed this topic elsewhere before he started this thread. He knows my views, I figured I would let others put their two cents in.

You can read some of our discussion here


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
I think we would talk about

I think we would talk about the things that are important to us. Our lives, our politics, our likes, our dislikes, our hot button issues.... still basically the same things but without the extra component of religion.

That is what I think we would discuss. 


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Hrm - I disagree! :P

Hrm - I disagree! Sticking out tongue We wouldn't discuss it in a pointscoring way, perhaps, nor in a persuasive way. But the reasons for believing are fascinating! At least for me.

[Edit: not fascinating in the same way that insanity or debugging a faulty program is fascinating: "oh that's the broken bit!" The fascination is that logical, intelligent, educated people, including a few of the world's greatest minds, can believe this thing that appears so vanishingly improbable to me. Endlessly fascinating.]

That's why I read mostly the posts by the theists, especially those that are analysing their own beliefs deeply. Those are the ones that are sexy and interesting!

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I disagree with you guys on

I disagree with you guys on this. First: His premise was impossible to accept as a starting point. Second:
Is there really a point to the question?
I talk to Catholics, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and various other adherents (not all theists, but you get the picture) every single day, about things not remotely related to religion. It's a consequence of, uh, living, that you interact with a lot of people you wouldn't agree with on certain points, if those points were to come up. What about it?
The very name "rational responders" suggests a reaction to something: dogma, religion, etc. If religion weren't in the equation, we wouldn't be having a discussion at all.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
DewiMorgan wrote: Shame it

DewiMorgan wrote:
Shame it got threadjacked, because it had the possibility to be just as nice a thread as the "what are your hopes?" thread Smiling It could all be people suggesting the things that would interest them in a friendly, open discussion between non-combative theists and atheists.

Issues come up, points addressed, and things do go off topic, though I must admit this thread had a flow to it at least.  The threads that irritate me the most are talking about bible meaning and the statement almost always comes up about the bible being "unproven" which as far as I could tell went against the desire to ask a question about the bible to begin with.  Anyway my point is at least this thread remained friendly and while I know me and BGH have had quarrels in the past, I gotta admit from this and the other thread he made reference to, I respect him now more than I ever did.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: I think we would

BGH wrote:
I think we would talk about the things that are important to us. Our lives, our politics, our likes, our dislikes, our hot button issues.... still basically the same things but without the extra component of religion.

That is what I think we would discuss.

ABSOLUTELY.  I'm in.... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
JonnyP wrote: Perhaps

JonnyP wrote:

Perhaps delusion is all the proof that is needed?

 Perhaps. Delusion can be a tricky thing.

 Also, I'd like to say that I find the TC's avatar to be disturbing and rather morbid.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Is there

magilum wrote:
Is there really a point to the question?

...

The very name "rational responders" suggests a reaction to something: dogma, religion, etc. If religion weren't in the equation, we wouldn't be having a discussion at all.

"free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism"...

You call that a "rational" response?  Why? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
1. You still haven't

1. You still haven't answered my question as to how & why you think beliefs inherently deserve respect.

2. You seem to have completely changed the subject to trying to get me to voluteer more often, without addressing the points I made about actions vs. thoughts.

3. In response to your specific questions about respect:

Maybe I'm using an odd definition of 'respect', perhaps 'high regard' would be more appropriate but if that's not what respect means then what does it mean? In any case it doesn't change my basic standpoint - everyone starts off neutral and respect is not a right.

Q. If every person must earn respect, that means that person had no respect from you when you first met them, correct?

- Respect is something positive, and it's not ever a neutral position. I really don't like the way it's used so loosely. When I meet someone they start off on a neutral level and earn respect or disrespect based on what I learn about them and see them do. Just because you don't have respect for them doesn't mean you have disrespect for them, although it sounds wierd to say that. Treating someone with common decency whether you know them or not or, whether you respect them or not, is a respectful action and something I try to do. And like DewiMorgan said, I would lose self respect if I didn't treat other people nicely. Not having respect for someone doesn't equal treating them like crap or denying them basic human rights.

Q. How long before you give respect?

- Someone who introduces themselves with a genuine smile and a firm handshake has already earned some respect. The doctors of Medecins sans Frontiers already have my respect, even though I've never met any and don't know much about them.

Q. Since you say you must give it and it must be earned, is it earned in degrees? By scale?

- I suppose so, although I've never thought of it that way. With each action / new piece of information about someone (I don't have to meet them to gain respect for them) the respect I have for them changes. It's not something I sit down and add up with a calculator, it happens subconsciously in the same way someone subconsciously grows to like someone more or less as a friend.

Q. Is it an all or nothing?

- No, but one action can cause me to lose all respect for someone and even earn them disrespect if I feel it outweighs anything I respect them for in the first place.

 

Please answer the two questions above.

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: magilum

razorphreak wrote:

magilum wrote:
Is there really a point to the question?

...

The very name "rational responders" suggests a reaction to something: dogma, religion, etc. If religion weren't in the equation, we wouldn't be having a discussion at all.

"free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism"...

You call that a "rational" response?  Why? 


Don't change the subject. Your complaint has nothing to do with this conversation -- a conversation we wouldn't be having if the topic of religion didn't bring us to this site, which is what I said in the first place.
That's what your original post asked: what would we talk about if not religion? The answer is we wouldn't. The second answer is that atheists and theists talk and interact outside of arguing about religion every single day, and that it's nothing extraordinary. 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:
Don't change the subject. Your complaint has nothing to do with this conversation -- a conversation we wouldn't be having if the topic of religion didn't bring us to this site, which is what I said in the first place.

That's what your original post asked: what would we talk about if not religion? The answer is we wouldn't. The second answer is that atheists and theists talk and interact outside of arguing about religion every single day, and that it's nothing extraordinary.

Why do you misquote me? Did I say at any point we do not talk about a religious point?

I'm not changing the subject but asking a direct question in relation to the very existence to this site. This site is about a direct challenge to the existance of those who believe in a diety, more specifically to the CHRISTIAN beliefs, and what I want to know is it possible to remove one part, one attitude from these conversations, without stopping the why questions. That one part is not to take religion out at all (I never said that). I asked if you stopped asking me to prove God exists or to prove the bible is a work of truth, what would we discuss? How would those conversations proceed?

If you asked me why is copulating a relationship before marriage wrong, I tell you according to my faith with bible support, but you turn around and not ask but tell me that since I can't prove my faith or shout that the bible was written by men, to which that makes what I said is irrelevant to you, why did you ask me the question to begin with?

If you want to ask me a question so you can understand what my faith is cool. If you are bringing up the question just so you can get that jab in there about "no proof", what the hell? That's the point of my original post, that's the reason for my question. Now do you want to answer that, if you can, starting with is it possible to hold that kind of conversation, here.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
magilum

magilum wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
One thing I really want everyone to know, understand, and accept (atheists and theists) - not one person on this planet can prove God exists.

Assumptions contained herein:

1. That there's one “god.”

2. That said “god” is supernatural, undetectable; therefore that a world with “him” and without are indiscernible from one another.

3. That no one has the proof (unlikely they wouldn't speak up, but an assumption nonetheless).

4. That said “god” contradicts both the old and new testament depictions of an objectively tangible “god,” manifest at various times as a physical entity, a corporeal incarnation, in timely natural events, in seemingly supernatural events.

I sincerely appreciate it when people break arguments down and point things out in this way. Having had no formal education in logic (or damned near anything else), but wanting to learn how to more effectively engage in debate, it's extremely helpful. Many thanks Smiling

magilum wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
No possible proof can be offered to another individual to believe. God makes himself known to every person on an individual basis. Until you are called, you will remain in a state of disbelief, which is OK too because just as those in the time of Jesus that did not believe, there are those who were meant to believe and others who aren't.

Which again contradicts scriptural depictions of “god” as a very active and confrontational entity. I know “faith” is premise of the religion, but it wasn't always so according to the bible. Since it places it in the subjective, it leaves no room to prove anything objectively (which seems to have been the point), and no means to discern a genuine experience from, say, the onset of schizophrenia. The mentally ill are capable of being just as certain about the apparitions they experience, and many of them are religious in nature.

Once a person becomes aware of an idea that not only relies wholly on the subjective for its manifestation, and the more a person wants a conclusion to be so, the more susceptible they become to problems like confirmation bias. That few people are raised unaware of religious principles, there is again, no way to discern a the self-pacifying of emotional turmoil with mythological platitudes from a genuine experience. Since we're talking about the subjective realm, I'll say that it's up to the individual to figure out which he or she is experiencing.

And although I may be breaking the "anecdotes suck as evidence" rule (heh)... speaking entirely from (subjective) experience because I haven't researched this particular aspect in great depth, I have observed (in myself, and others I know), that the gods one calls upon in employing mythological platitudes, and the "supernatural" events, hallucinations or feelings one has is wholly dependent upon which mythology - or denomination therein - one's "faith" is currently invested in.

 

magilum wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
Once we all accept this, understanding that I cannot convert you, and you cannot de-convert me, we'll all live much more happy, co-existing lives (and yes this is biblically supported).

Religious people are involved in politics, and that affects all of us. That's the only reason I left my state of contented apathy toward religion. I couldn't care less about prying the bible from your fingers.

[...]

Once again I'm offering an anecdote, but what the hell.

I left my own "state of contented apathy" in 1980, when I was an 18 year old agnostic theist, after having been raised a C&E Catholic and then getting "saved" at 15 and rather quickly realizing that I just wasn't cut out to be a Christian because there were just too many questions that didn't have answers that made sense to me.

It was the founding of, and credence lent to, the Moral Majority and the obvious agenda of these new, politically active evangelical megachurches (which included the church where I got "saved&quotEye-wink that got me fired up. Their ideology was being given so much "respect" that some of my liberties as an adult American citizen were endangered.

Sadly, I've seen things get worse, not better, in almost 30 years. I started fighting because I wanted Christians to keep out of my personal life. Years later I fought because as a pagan I didn't warrant the same "respect" as Christians... and then I became a parent, and our openness about our paganism made me, and my young child targets of some Christian "love" that showed just how much "respect" we got for our beliefs.

Now I fight because those same Christians I knew would do exactly as they have done - to the terrifying extent that the President of the United States actually "consults and confers" with people like Billy Graham and James Dobson - are successfully lobbying to legislate away some of our most fundamental freedoms and I'll be damned if I'll pretend that their ideas are worthy of respect. I've realized that in these matters silence == consent, and I will NOT consent to living as some Christians think I should be legally required to.

Quite frankly, I don't know how I could talk about the issues that are most important to me without it coming down to the "existence" question, because the Christian ideologies that are influencing the policies I disagree with are entirely dependent upon people's belief that their God exists and their Bible is supreme law.

Besides it stands to reason that even if we never addressed "God" here at RRS, and concentrated instead on alien abductions and Sasquatch sightings, at some point evidence that aliens or Bigfoot exist must be requested and/or presented in order for there to be a conversation worth having.

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: magilum

razorphreak wrote:

magilum wrote:
Don't change the subject. Your complaint has nothing to do with this conversation -- a conversation we wouldn't be having if the topic of religion didn't bring us to this site, which is what I said in the first place.

That's what your original post asked: what would we talk about if not religion? The answer is we wouldn't. The second answer is that atheists and theists talk and interact outside of arguing about religion every single day, and that it's nothing extraordinary.

Why do you misquote me? Did I say at any point we do not talk about a religious point?

I'm not changing the subject but asking a direct question in relation to the very existence to this site. This site is about a direct challenge to the existance of those who believe in a diety, more specifically to the CHRISTIAN beliefs, and what I want to know is it possible to remove one part, one attitude from these conversations, without stopping the why questions. That one part is not to take religion out at all (I never said that). I asked if you stopped asking me to prove God exists or to prove the bible is a work of truth, what would we discuss? How would those conversations proceed?


Minor point: I can cop to misinterpretting what you wrote, but I never presented it as a quote.

What you do seem to be asking is for the question of the legitimacy of religious claims to be moved back off the table. This has been the default for dealing with religion up until this point, and is neither novel nor effective against religiously motivated political blocs. I'll say it a second or third time: this site, from what I can tell, is in response to the effects of religion; but you can't address those while making the unjustified assumption that the basis for those effects is valid, or at the least off limits.

As to whether such conversations occur, where the validity of religion is not questioned in a moral debate, of course they do. They are the norm. This is a different approach.


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Rave wrote: 1. You still

Rave wrote:

1. You still haven't answered my question as to how & why you think beliefs inherently deserve respect.

2. You seem to have completely changed the subject to trying to get me to voluteer more often, without addressing the points I made about actions vs. thoughts.

Answering my questions would be nice of you, razorphreak. 

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
1. You still haven't

1. You still haven't answered my question as to how & why you think beliefs inherently deserve respect. - Remember when I asked you all or not on respect?  Kinda goes to the same point.  Now obviously there are bigger issues when it comes to if you should respect someone who has a specific kind of belief (you made mention to the KKK at one time) however all things being equal, would you not respect me as an individual because I believe in God?  As I've told you I believe people inherently deserve respect and that means everything that goes along with that person.  It would be the same as respecting a woman as a woman even if she was a single mother of two (think why does the term "MILF" really show disrespect).  I guess my answer to your question is it goes to why I believe people deserve respect not have to earn it.

2. You seem to have completely changed the subject to trying to get me to voluteer more often, without addressing the points I made about actions vs. thoughts. - Actually they were just points along the topic of volunteering.  Take them just as they were...a response.  I didn't ask you to do anything so don't read so much into it.

Rave wrote:
Maybe I'm using an odd definition of 'respect', perhaps 'high regard' would be more appropriate but if that's not what respect means then what does it mean? In any case it doesn't change my basic standpoint - everyone starts off neutral and respect is not a right.

But what does "neutral" mean?

Rave wrote:
Just because you don't have respect for them doesn't mean you have disrespect for them, although it sounds wierd to say that. Treating someone with common decency whether you know them or not or, whether you respect them or not, is a respectful action and something I try to do.

What you are saying I understand but it really sounds like a contradiction in terms.  Yes you respect them but you won't call it that so while you don't disrespect them the absence of your respect for them isn't disrespect.  In my view, treating someone with "common decency" is showing someone respect.  You do this throughout the time you know them, if 5 minutes or 5 years.

Rave wrote:
Someone who introduces themselves with a genuine smile and a firm handshake has already earned some respect. The doctors of Medecins sans Frontiers already have my respect, even though I've never met any and don't know much about them.

Doesn't that go back to the idea of "common decency" though? 

Rave wrote:
With each action / new piece of information about someone (I don't have to meet them to gain respect for them) the respect I have for them changes. It's not something I sit down and add up with a calculator, it happens subconsciously in the same way someone subconsciously grows to like someone more or less as a friend.

What doesn't make much sense then is you could break that down further and start wondering well does this action make me disrespect you more or less.  I think people respect in a "all or nothing" way.  I don't think there is a scale or whatever since if that person borrowed your grill but didn't bring it back when they said they would you won't be so inclined to let them borrow anything again meaning your trust is lowered and anytime you are around them, now say it becomes "what does this person really want" and the respect for that person is lost until you feel they have the right to have it back.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: What you do

magilum wrote:
What you do seem to be asking is for the question of the legitimacy of religious claims to be moved back off the table.

Actually I'm wondering why they are part of a discussion when the question was to learn why such claims are made and their reasoning behind them.  The original question begins with wondering why and based upon that legitimacy wasn't an issue until 5 posts later "oh well it's unproven anyway" pops up. 

magilum wrote:
This has been the default for dealing with religion up until this point, and is neither novel nor effective against religiously motivated political blocs.

Actually for as long as I've been posting on this forum there is usually only one default response - prove it. 

magilum wrote:
I'll say it a second or third time: this site, from what I can tell, is in response to the effects of religion; but you can't address those while making the unjustified assumption that the basis for those effects is valid, or at the least off limits.

Yes I can if it is my belief they are.  You call this site a "response to the effects of religion" meaning you too believe it to be a "mind disorder", essentially disrespecting what I believe because you don't share that same belief (even if you claim to have previously).  This is like saying prejudice in 21st century America doesn't exist any longer and African-Americans who say it still exists are unwilling to drop the claim even though many will tell you that they have experienced it on a daily basis.  But because you were not there, you don't believe them.  You aren't trying to find out why they think this way, you just dismiss it as "delusions".  Now of course you'll tell me that's not a fair analogy but I guarantee you, to many others, they will understand that perfectly.

magilum wrote:
As to whether such conversations occur, where the validity of religion is not questioned in a moral debate, of course they do. They are the norm. This is a different approach.

They are not the norm and I know that much since I've been posting on this forum. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: One

razorphreak wrote:

One thing I really want everyone to know, understand, and accept (atheists and theists) - not one person on this planet can prove God exists. No possible proof can be offered to another individual to believe. God makes himself known to every person on an individual basis. Until you are called, you will remain in a state of disbelief, which is OK too because just as those in the time of Jesus that did not believe, there are those who were meant to believe and others who aren't. Once we all accept this, understanding that I cannot convert you, and you cannot de-convert me, we'll all live much more happy, co-existing lives (and yes this is biblically supported). It's from this point that I know, I realize, that nightline thing was a complete mistake. I personally have had run-ins with WOTM-types and I don't agree with their approach.

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been addressed but I just thought I'd comment that if only God can put belief in himself in my heart then he is a total bastard for not doing it. Then he's going to burn me in hell forever for dying without believing in him, which is something only he could have made happen. Talk about fuck me. I wouldn't call this the picture of the loving God who wants us to believe in him that I was always told about. Come to think of it, if God wants me to believe in him, why don't I, given that he's omnipotent and all. 


 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: I haven't

Tilberian wrote:
I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been addressed but I just thought I'd comment that if only God can put belief in himself in my heart then he is a total bastard for not doing it. Then he's going to burn me in hell forever for dying without believing in him, which is something only he could have made happen. Talk about fuck me. I wouldn't call this the picture of the loving God who wants us to believe in him that I was always told about. Come to think of it, if God wants me to believe in him, why don't I, given that he's omnipotent and all.

Because you don't know God means you are going to hell?  Where did you get that idea? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Because

razorphreak wrote:

Because you don't know God means you are going to hell? Where did you get that idea?

Wow, I can go to heaven without knowing God? Woo hoo! I knew I was taking a gamble on those Sunday morning sleep-ins, but it looks like it's paid off.

Hmmmmmm, if that's true, then what ARE all those people doing going to Church and giving their money away all the time?

I feel another razorphreak lecture coming about how I don't ask questions but jump to conclusions. Sorry, phreak, I just have this antipathy to being led by the nose. If you want to make a point, make it and don't expect me to beg you for your opinion.

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: Wow, I can

Tilberian wrote:
Wow, I can go to heaven without knowing God? Woo hoo! I knew I was taking a gamble on those Sunday morning sleep-ins, but it looks like it's paid off.

Romans 2 - people who do not know God will be judged by their actions in their life. 

Tilberian wrote:
Hmmmmmm, if that's true, then what ARE all those people doing going to Church and giving their money away all the time?

I can't speak for anyone else in a church; I go to worship God and fellowship with others.

Tilberian wrote:
I feel another razorphreak lecture coming about how I don't ask questions but jump to conclusions. Sorry, phreak, I just have this antipathy to being led by the nose. If you want to make a point, make it and don't expect me to beg you for your opinion.

Well since you were expecting it might as well give it to you.

There is a big difference between posters like you and others like zarathustra or vaslet or jce. Those that I mentioned (and there are several others too) aren't begging for a theist's opinion but want to know it and understand it without judging the person before they know them.  Correct me if I'm wrong please, but you seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder, that all theists no matter who they are cause this antipathy and set you off beyond measure.  You made the statement that atheists would go to hell.  I simply asked you where did you get that idea from and your response...condesending.  You didn't explain to me WHY you have that opinion even though I asked for it.  Just like in the other thread, and I'm still not sure why, you chose to attack instead of discuss.  This thread was meant to find out why you are like that and ask the very simple question - if you were to stop the aggressive attack on theists (such as the "prove it" statements), what would there be to discuss with other theists?  I know what you think of me as a believer but WHY do you hate?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Actually I'm wondering why they are part of a discussion when the question was to learn why such claims are made and their reasoning behind them. The original question begins with wondering why and based upon that legitimacy wasn't an issue until 5 posts later "oh well it's unproven anyway" pops up. [...]

And if you had good reasoning, I doubt I'd be hearing this complaint.

razorphreak wrote:

Yes I can if it is my belief they are.

You don't get a free ticket to have your assumptions shared by others. People will entertain your premise within limits, but if you don't substantiate your claims, you don't get to clap the dust from your hands and walk away like you've made a point. If you want to start with baseless shared assumptions, go to your local religious franchise and debate how many angels can dance on the point of a needle.

razorphreak wrote:

You call this site a "response to the effects of religion" meaning you too believe it to be a "mind disorder",

You have no basis to conflate those two statements. It's just a motto, I didn't make it up, and I have no opinion on it.

razorphreak wrote:

essentially disrespecting what I believe because you don't share that same belief (even if you claim to have previously).

I never shared anything like your beliefs. I tried to embrace a few religions, but they all smelled like bullshit. I have no yearning to be a believer, and I couldn't be happier since I've realized that.

razorphreak wrote:

This is like saying prejudice in 21st century America doesn't exist any longer and African-Americans who say it still exists are unwilling to drop the claim even though many will tell you that they have experienced it on a daily basis. [...]

1. You're not a minority in the US. Don't even bother making that comparison. I wouldn't even do it as part of a reviled atheist minority.
2. Your religion is a tradition, not a genetic trait. Your beliefs are up for debate, especially where they affect other people.
3. Being black doesn't entail anything about gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, abortion rights, the way that religiously-organized political blocs do.

razorphreak wrote:

They are not the norm and I know that much since I've been posting on this forum.

Non-confrontational conversations about religion occur every single day in the real world. I've had a ton of them myself; it's just casual getting-to-know-you banter. I don't think that's the purpose of this site. If you want that, go shoot the shit by the water cooler.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:
And if you had good reasoning, I doubt I'd be hearing this complaint. ...You don't get a free ticket to have your assumptions shared by others. People will entertain your premise within limits, but if you don't substantiate your claims, you don't get to clap the dust from your hands and walk away like you've made a point. If you want to start with baseless shared assumptions, go to your local religious franchise and debate how many angels can dance on the point of a needle.

Then let me put it to you this way - rephrase your questions. If you want to know why, in accordance to theist belief, why this or that is wrong and/or immoral, don't leave the question asking for an opinion. Don't start a discussion about Christianity only looking to bash it because the only "proof" as you see it is a book you don't accept. If all you want is to bash a theist, go do it in the forum where a theist isn't allowed to post.

magilum wrote:

1. You're not a minority in the US. Don't even bother making that comparison. I wouldn't even do it as part of a reviled atheist minority. - and? Because someone or a group of people are considered the majority they don't experience hatred?

2. Your religion is a tradition, not a genetic trait. Your beliefs are up for debate, especially where they affect other people. - if you are asking for my view on an issue, you aren't asking to debate my beliefs but ask me what they are. It isn't respectul to ask and then bash them because of YOUR beliefs.

3. Being black doesn't entail anything about gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, abortion rights, the way that religiously-organized political blocs do. - what does that have anything to do with me asking you why do you ask for my opinion and then belittle it for no reason other than you don't agree?

magilum wrote:
Non-confrontational conversations about religion occur every single day in the real world. I've had a ton of them myself; it's just casual getting-to-know-you banter. I don't think that's the purpose of this site. If you want that, go shoot the shit by the water cooler.

Again the questions that you and others ask, like hamby asking about which 10 commandments are valid (and receiving a response clairfying), are asking a theist in accordance to their beliefs their view. Taking what the theist said to use it as an opportunity to say "well you can't prove the book is valid" shows alterior motive to even asking the question to begin with. You want proof as to why a Christian believes so then you should be expecting that proof to come from the book they believe.  That's all you asked for; not proof the bible was real.  If you wanted that, it should be a different thread.  So asking me why Jesus said something and I tell you IS substantiating my beliefs.  You going into if Jesus existed or not is you going off topic for no other reason than to criticize my beliefs.  See the difference?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: I can't

razorphreak wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else in a church; I go to worship God and fellowship with others.

Fellowship with others I can understand, but why bother to worship God if you already have a pass to heaven?

Or is the devil in the details when it comes to getting judged on your actions in life? IOW, are you still going to get dinged for not obeying Christian doctrine even though you didn't know God?

Hypothetical polling question: if a person doesn't believe in God, do you think that person will go to heaven or hell? I wonder how many American Christians would answer "heaven" or even "it depends" to that question. 

 

razorphreak wrote:

Well since you were expecting it might as well give it to you.

There is a big difference between posters like you and others like zarathustra or vaslet or jce. Those that I mentioned (and there are several others too) aren't begging for a theist's opinion but want to know it and understand it without judging the person before they know them. Correct me if I'm wrong please, but you seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder, that all theists no matter who they are cause this antipathy and set you off beyond measure. You made the statement that atheists would go to hell. I simply asked you where did you get that idea from and your response...condesending. You didn't explain to me WHY you have that opinion even though I asked for it. Just like in the other thread, and I'm still not sure why, you chose to attack instead of discuss. This thread was meant to find out why you are like that and ask the very simple question - if you were to stop the aggressive attack on theists (such as the "prove it" statements), what would there be to discuss with other theists? I know what you think of me as a believer but WHY do you hate?

You post an idea and I attack it if I think it's stupid. I don't ask you to like my tone and I don't ask you to respond. I might point out that there's a big difference between you and a lot of other theists on this site: they don't waste bandwidth whining about my tone but instead get down to business defending their ideas and beliefs. And attacking mine, which is fine with me. That's how we find out who's right and who's wrong.

And BTW, you are making the assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about in these matters and that I need you to enlighten me as to Christian doctrine. Keep in mind that I've been all over these issues with many, many theists before you. 

Nice attempt to provoke me with the hate comment. You have no evidence that I hate you and you know I don't even know you personally. I don't hate theists, I hate the crap they believe and the ignorance and immorality it spawns. I also have a pretty good hate on for the political and rhetorical tactics of the various organized Christian political groups in North America.  

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Razorphreak, I forgot what

Razorphreak, I forgot what an obnoxious time waster you are. I'm going to snip the shit out of your posts where you veer off topic or use crap analogies.

razorphreak wrote:
[...]If you want to know why, in accordance to theist belief, why this or that is wrong and/or immoral, don't leave the question asking for an opinion. Don't start a discussion about Christianity only looking to bash it because the only "proof" as you see it is a book you don't accept. If all you want is to bash a theist, go do it in the forum where a theist isn't allowed to post.
You're laboring under the delusion you're a special consultant doe eyed atheists flock to for advice. You once said that Christianity isn't a religion, but a "way of faith." You offered nothing to back that up. Textom clarified why come Christians believe one covenant negates another, and he provided history on it, without a bunch of hemming and hawing and subjective opinion.
razorphreak wrote:
Again the questions that you and others ask, like hamby asking about which 10 commandments are valid (and receiving a response clairfying), are asking a theist in accordance to their beliefs their view.
Stop trying to reframe the site according to your preferences.
razorphreak wrote:
Taking what the theist said to use it as an opportunity to say "well you can't prove the book is valid" shows alterior motive to even asking the question to begin with. You want proof as to why a Christian believes so then you should be expecting that proof to come from the book they believe.
That applies to anything. We would waive the right to question any belief, not matter how absurd. We'd be sitting with our thumbs up our butts, while we nod in helpless approval of folks in tinfoil hats, running home before the sabbath, and the committing honor killings. No, again, you beliefs don't get a free ride.
razorphreak wrote:
That's all you asked for; not proof the bible was real.
Who are you talking about? Whenever you reply to me it's like you think you're talking to about fifty people.
razorphreak wrote:
[...] So asking me why Jesus said something and I tell you IS substantiating my beliefs.
Haha. Oh, you were serious. Hmm.
razorphreak wrote:
You going into if Jesus existed or not is you going off topic for no other reason than to criticize my beliefs. [...]
PKB, bitch.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:
Razorphreak, I forgot what an obnoxious time waster you are. I'm going to snip the shit out of your posts where you veer off topic or use crap analogies.

Thanks for reminding me why I realize it's a waste of time trying to debate anything with you since you obviously have no interest in actually learning what I'm about. Hope you aren't like that with anyone else.

You didn't read my first post and you've completely ignored what I asked.  It's pointless debating the topic with you since you obviously aren't capable of doing so. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire