Pardon my scavenger hunt here,Quote:
I must be perfectly clear; I am aiming at the simply belief in a God. God being related as a Christian one. Not behaviour or anything else, just the simple belief in God.
Also, if you can quote me saying that we ought to remove religion all together, I will be surprised. This is because I am not suggesting this at all. I am sure my thoughts come across strong, but I am not suggesting to remove such an integral part to human life. I am fully aware of, not only how difficult that would be, but how many people need it; even if it is completely false.
It doesn't seem like you're just talking about a monotheistic God, much less just the hyper-literalist moment-to-moment controlling God you seem to think all theists believe in. I left out all the times, including the last words you posted, that you said all religion is "completely false," "self-delusional," "irrational," "stupid," "ignorant," "enslaving," and whatever additional pejoratives I might have missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
As you've done each time I suggest that there is some validity to a religious viewpoint, you're demonstrating a total lack of respect or empathy for the majority of the human race. "I can see why you're so stupid" is not respect.Quote:
True. I worry that some people are simply not giving up their faith because of the fear of how their community would treat them. Can you imagine being part of a large Christian family in the Christian dominated USA and feeling perfectly Atheist? There is no doubt that they would be in fear and would likely convert to Theism simply out of deterrance. For others, I am curious if they are simply afraid.
You're exhibiting a dogmatic disbelief. Not skepticism, but the proscription of specific viewpoints about which you already have fixed ideas.Quote:
Is that unreasonable? I am sure any faithful person wants me to be just as open to their beliefs as I want them to be open to my view (I refuse to call it a belief and I hope you see why by now).
And your assumption of faithful persons is false insofar as you appear to be defining openness to belief as a willingness to adopt it. Yes, all faiths have proselytizers, and monotheism more than others, but the average religious person has the humility to recognize his/her imperfect understanding and accept that other people are likely doing fine with whatever they believe, unless there's evidence to the contrary, evidence of undue stress and suffering.
The urge to convert, or more fundamentally, to be right, in comparisonto others, is one of the cardinal poisons of our society, not religion itself. And from what I can see, several zealots of nothing in this thread exhibit that urge as as surely as any zealots of something. Together with the urge to command others for power's sake, I'd say these two cover the problems you, O'nus, and Moonbeam and Korritke ascribe to religion. And you're all acting more like part of the problem than part of the solution. In fact, I'd say you're responding pretty well to the wishes of those perpetuating religious conflict for the sake of power.
Atheism, as a positive assertion of a Godless world and not simply opposition to theism, can only be "proven wrong" according to the assumptions by which one arrives at atheism, which is to say not at all. Your refusal to even entertain any viable model of theism is evidence enough of atheism's insularity and circularity. This is not to discredit all irreligious persons--plenty, like their moderately religious counterparts, are satisfied that their view works well enough for them and it will be clear enough if others need help.Quote:
Here's my case in point, Taosaur:
- Theism; works on circular logic and self-serving bias. Cannot be proven wrong.
- Atheism; works on empirical grounds and can be proven wrong.