Discussing Religion Is Hard, Sort of Like Presidenting...

[MineralMan]

Believers believe, despite a lack of evidence. Non-believers don't believe, because that evidence doesn't exist. So, the discussion starts off on shaky ground to begin with. It all goes downhill from there.

Christians, in particular, believe that you're doomed to a hellish eternity if you don't believe. Non-believers scoff at such things, and consider them mere superstition.

So, how do we discuss religion? The only answer is through tolerance. I can tolerate anyone's beliefs, as long as they are someone else's beliefs and I'm not being told I must also believe. In return, I expect my disbelief to be tolerated in the same way.

I cannot believe in supernatural stuff. Others can, apparently. My disbelief has nothing to do with anyone else's belief, but I don't feel the need to be silent about it. I find fault, often, with religion's encroachment into my spaces. I don't like religion to tell me that I must not do some harmless thing because it violates some religious rule. And religion often tries to do that.

So, I discuss religion, in places where discussions are in order. Like this place. I don't apologize for my non-belief, and I don't expect others to apologize for their belief. I do, however, reserve the privilege of criticizing things that religious people do when they affect others in negative ways. I won't stop doing that.

I'm an atheist, which means that religion affects me from time to time. Usually it's when someone wants me to believe something I cannot. That's not going to happen. It is the effect of religion on my life and other people's lives that causes me to discuss religion, and I will continue doing that.

That's guaranteed.

[guillaumeb]

1. It is difficult, or it can be difficult,

when some discuss theism as being intellectually deficient.

Or when some accuse theism of being the primary cause of suffering in the world.

Or when some ignore any positive news about theism as they insist that theism is uniquely bad.

Or other such attacks that are then called discussion.

Yes, it can be difficult.

[MineralMan]

2. Are you saying that I have done those things?

Who, exactly do you think is doing those things?

Feh!

[guillaumeb]

3. Read the many threads,

and the many replies.

[MineralMan]

4. I already have, at least a lot of them.

That is not an answer to my question. I assume no answer is forthcoming.

[guillaumeb]

5. For those with eyes to see, the answer is clearly there. eom

[MineralMan]

6. Yet another incomplete biblical reference?

Uff da!

[Major Nikon]

9. You also obviously believe what you want to believe

You also come across as someone who is incurious of the opinions of those who don’t share your beliefs. So it’s not that hard for others to also read the many replies.

[MineralMan]

38. I asked you a specific question.

You provided a generic answer. Point it what I have done, not dereference to everyone with whom you disagree. I'll wait here for your specific examples.

[guillaumeb]

39. One example of the difficulty.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/121866

[MineralMan]

56. So, to find a specific answer, you had to search back to a post

from 2011? One that has nothing to do with anything I have posted Really? I give up.

[Mariana]

35. It doesn't matter whether you've done those things, MineralMan.

Some atheists, sometime, somewhere supposedly did those things It doesn't matter who it was. Gil considers you to be responsible for, because to Gil, atheists aren't discrete human beings at all. We are all identical and interchangeable. That's why he blames you for the supposed actions of others.

[MineralMan]

37. Well, that's decidedly odd, it seems to me.

[Mariana]

40. There's a lot of oddness going on there.

Insisting that responses to his posts in this group are being rehearsed and orchestrated. Bragging about how he receives numerous personal messages asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group. Scrounging the archives for ancient threads to prove - well, something. And now, babbling about some imaginary facebook group.

Odd indeed.

[MineralMan]

42. Well, it would be easy to ignore if it weren't

So pervasive. Maybe he thinks we are all the same person. I have no idea.

[Eko]

7. This from the cult of

"we believe we are going to heaven and you are going to hell." It boils down to Atheist: from all the available evidence there is no god and believing such is ridiculous. Theist: If you dont believe this you will spend forever in a horrible place.
Yes, it can be difficult to have a conversation especially about attacks.

[Major Nikon]

12. When one is convinced criticism of religion is an attack on them personally...

It’s easy to see how minds get closed.

[guillaumeb]

17. Far too simplistic a portrayal.

[Eko]

23. And this isnt?

"when some discuss theism as being intellectually deficient.

Or when some accuse theism of being the primary cause of suffering in the world.

Or when some ignore any positive news about theism as they insist that theism is uniquely bad.

Or other such attacks that are then called discussion."

[guillaumeb]

25. All observations,

based on actual replies here from various frequent posters.

[Eko]

27. really?

Where did someone say this?
"Or when some accuse theism of being the primary cause of suffering in the world."

[Mariana]

48. No one said that. He made it up. nt.

[Major Nikon]

57. The intellectual bankruptcy just isn't that hard to spot

[trotsky]

13. You've been told this at least a hundred times by a dozen different people, but...

there are groups on DU where you don't have to encounter religious opinions you don't like.

Lots of them.

They were created specifically for people to discuss how wonderful religion is, and to not have to deal with opinions contrary to that position.

That you ignore all of them, and instead choose to continue to attack people offering up a different point of view in the ONE forum they are allowed to do that, speaks volumes about your true desires and motivations.

What does it mean to you to be a Christian, gil?

Love others, including your enemies? Or attack and smear people you don't like?

Which one is the "Christian" choice, gil?

[edhopper]

8. Why should obviously

eronious beliefs be tolerated just because they are religious. I am not talking about being nasty to those that hold the beliefs. But why give the beliefs a pass.
Do we tolerate belief in trickle down economics, or Ayn Rand Objectivism or Trump speaking the truth.

[Major Nikon]

11. Because many are convinced one must accept intolerance as a condition of tolerance

No distinction is made between the criticism of belief and the criticism of believers simply because they subscribe to a belief system. That’s how some believers use the concept of tolerance to fortify religious privilege. This manifests itself into all sorts of ways such as pretending there’s a “war on Christmas” to 11th commandment argle bargle. If you look, you can even find it in this thread.

[MineralMan]

14. I tolerate all beliefs. People can hold any belief

they're able to believe, as far as I'm concerned. I only ask that I not have to do the same, and that those who believe not attempt to coerce me into any aspect of the belief.

Beliefs are personal. Everyone believes somewhat differently. That's never a problem. It's how people behave that makes all the difference.

[edhopper]

16. But there are some (if not many) beliefs

that compel people to act on them and impose them on others.

I see no problem with challenging other's beliefs and trying to dissuade people from them.

[Mariana]

36. That is not intolerance. nt.

[Major Nikon]

10. It should be noted narrow mindedness is a defining feature of organized religion

Many aspects of religious scripture demand it and it’s engrained into all sorts of religious doctrine and dogma. Non-believers of a particular interpretation are routinely shunned as instruments of evil. The more fundamental and cult-like organized religion becomes, the more pronounced this effect is, but it exists to various degrees in almost all organized religions. When belief is commanded by a higher power there is no other arbiter of thought to which anyone else can appeal. This is by design.

[MineralMan]

15. Many organized religions do not present a problem.

Those don't bother me with their beliefs. They don't insist that I also believe. Other organized religions, however, appear to think that their doctrines, rules, and concepts must be foisted off on everyone. They insist on their beliefs being part of society, and espouse them loudly, publicly. They even attempt to include them in laws all must obey.

That, i cannot accept. Ever.

[Major Nikon]

21. They may not present a problem to you, but most still present a problem

Any close minded organization that serves as a moral authority is a problem.

[Pope George Ringo II]

22. Even the less overt ones still represent a problem.

Anything which encourages people to seek a solution in magic and superstition is interfering with actually solving problems. Even if they're not encouraging their followers to blow up buildings, they're still wasting resources--human or otherwise--which could be better spent on medical research or whatnot, rather than casting spells.

[marylandblue]

29. I don't know about that

We don't have tp spend any resources on making movies either, but if we all stop going to the movies, do you really think we will donate the money to medical research instead?

[Pope George Ringo II]

31. But the choice isn't movies or medical research. It's spells or medical research.

Take bubonic plague as an example. The "Derp, goddidit!" mindset allowed 50 million people to be killed in the Black Death, at least half of that in the Plague of Justinian. Even putting aside the ever-popular "regain divine favor by killing all the jews" religious solution, the mellow religious solution is to cast spells and hope for divine intervention. It's definitely an improvement, but it really doesn't help much.

The secular solution was to try antibiotics. Death rates from bubonic plague have plummeted. There's a level of responsibility involved in casting off "Derp, goddidit!" which involves actually accomplishing something.

[marylandblue]

34. There were no antibiotics in the 14th century

And there weren't any even 250 years into the scientific revolution. The choice is not antibiotics vs. spells. But antibiotics with spells or without. Or maybe antibiotics with a movie while you are under quarantine.

[Pope George Ringo II]

41. Of course there weren't antibiotics in the 14th Century.

And the problem is why there weren't.

"I don't want the disease! Sky Fairy, keep me safe!"

"Bob has the disease! Sky fairy, heal him!"

At no point did it occur to the superstitious savages to actually do anything about solving the problem instead of praying. They had no idea how the disease spread because "Derp, goddidit!" and that was all there was to it. No clue about the disease process because "Derp, goddidit!" No clue about treatment because, "Derp, goddidit." Even the things which were within their grasp were bypassed because "Derp, goddidit!"

You can't excuse them for not using solutions they weren't interested in developing. The same as they're not interested in vaccines or blood transfusions today.

[marylandblue]

43. Not true, they had non religious theories of disease

Many people believed plague was something in the air, called the miasma theory. So naturally they avoided homes of sick people and if they could, they would leave plague-affected towns. People called doctors to get treatments. A lot of doctors died of plague and others realized the danger so they refused to treat plague victims. They didn't just go to church and pray.


And it's not the same as the anti-vaxxers today. For one thing, many anti-vaxxers are not religiously motivated, showing that stupidity has no bounds. For another, we know that vaccines actually work and they are just ignoring the evidence. But in the 14th century, most medicines did not work and there was no record of any medicine ever actually working very well at any point in history. But not for lack of trying.

[Pope George Ringo II]

44. "Many people believed..."

Let me stop you right there.

[marylandblue]

45. Please don't stop there

Belief is an imprecise word with extremely broad that people on this board get upset about when used in the speaker DOESN'T mean. If you asked someone in the 14th Century, they would have said, "I KNOW that the theory of miasma is true." On the other hand, my physics professors said things like, "the speed of light is believed to be 186,000 miles per second." So please don't get hung up on the word "belief." It's just too imprecise for anything.

The important point is that people held theories of causation that started somewhere else than "God said so," and acted on those theories.

[Pope George Ringo II]

46. At this point, all we're doing is quibbling over which ignorant superstition

was responsible for what action. Bad air, elves, ghosts, or magic zombies. They're all just variations on supernatural explanations for reality, some with a better story than others. None of them contribute to actually solving any problems.

[marylandblue]

47. I am not actually sure what we are quibbling about

Near as I can tell, you seem to think that if it weren't for religion, the first homo sapiens would have all been scientific geniuses and we wouldn't have spent the last 200,000 odd years struggling for knowledge. Or something like that. I'm not really sure. Or maybe you think it's okay to spend $100 mllion to make a movie but not $1 to light a candle in memory of a dead person. Or maybe the $1 is only wasted if you believe the dead person actually cares about the candle.

[Pope George Ringo II]

49. Nice strawmen you got there.

[marylandblue]

50. No, it's genuine confusion

[Pope George Ringo II]

51. Superstition doesn't make people stupid. It sure attracts people who are already there, but...

What it does do is retard progress. Sticking generally with biology, look at how many people actively choose to call evolutionary theory a lie because it flatly contradicts their favorite creation myth. This is fucking well not helpful in the advancement of the human condition. That condition is not static--at least it's not supposed to be, but there are certainly enough religious groups dedicated to the notion that it should be. For crying out loud, the Amish are the poster children for what I'm talking about here. They're certainly not violent, but they're not going to win any Nobel Prizes for medicine any time soon. And it's not because they're genetically all morons, it's because they have actively chosen to be too ignorant to ever contribute in virtually any field which actually matters to a 21st Century human being. It took other people escaping the shackles of religion to drive up the life expectancy.

[marylandblue]

52. You said, "they're still wasting resources--human or otherwise

which could be better spent on medical research or what not, rather than casting spells."

And I don't see the harm in an occasional spell or two. Going to church on Sunday does not automatically interfere with your ability to be a doctor on Monday through Saturday. Neither does most other things people do on their Sundays off. I am not talking about people who live their entire lives with blinders on.

[Pope George Ringo II]

59. And the problems created by an "it's magic" mindset were a problem a thousand years ago

And they're still a problem today. Look at all the religious anti-vaxxers, which are a bigger problem than the simply stupid anti-vaxxers because we carve out exemptions to make their invisible friends happy. Sticking with those Amish, they raise their children to be unable to function in a modern economy except as living tourist kitsch, they won't let anybody have heart transplants, and they don't believe in preventative care like mammograms. So their children are doomed to a primitive life with the occasional easily preventable death. Yay religion. I tend to view it as an affront to human dignity and a waste of those human resources.

And your hypothetical doctor does okay at work as long as religion can be kept in the closet. Just like binge drinking on Saturday nights. Or a racist who can cover it up at work. But if something has to be left at home and minimized, what was the point of doing it in the first place? And just as no single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood, in the meantime he encourages people like Pence and Devos to run around saying "This is a christian nation."

Of course, that's not even talking about what it does to the doctor's children if the family tries to pass it on. Putting aside the moral objections to telling children that there's an all-seeing sky wizard constantly judging them and deciding if they need an eternity of punishment, we've also had studies showing that children raised in a religious household have more trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality.

There's just no upside to teaching children that "it's magic" is a valid answer to anything.

[marylandblue]

60. You complained earlier of straw dogs when I was confused

But all I see here is more straw dogs, so I am done.

[Pope George Ringo II]

32. Religious exemptions to vaccines. This is not a good idea for anybody.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5141457/

[Pope George Ringo II]

33. Heck, here's kind of a catch-all. Dead kids & society at large endangered because of religion.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/health/religion-medical-treatment/index.html

[Iggo]

18. We should be able to agree that there's a lack of evidence, though.

[MineralMan]

19. Well, after 2000 years or so, it's pretty clear that such evidence

does not exist. Those of us who recognize that have one way of looking at it. Those who refuse to recognize it have another way. They think that "faith" and "belief" outweigh the lack of actual evidence. Not very logical, it seems to me.

[Iggo]

20. But I mean that's faith, right?

Belief in the impossible.
Belief without evidence.

That's like their whole deal, man.

We should at least be able to agree with each other that their faith really is faith: belief without evidence, no proof necessary.

Seems to me it'd be a lot easier if they'd unclench and accept what we both agree on.

[marylandblue]

30. Most religionists I've met don't actually think that

In fact, only on DU have I seen such agreement between atheists and religionists that there is no evidence. Most religionists do rely on some type of evidence, even if it's very weak or based on emotion.

[uriel1972]

53. wishing something was so...

is not evidence of anything except the desire for that thing..
sorry, it's not even weak evidence for deities.

[marylandblue]

54. It's more than wishing, at least they think it is

They believe because it's what they've known all their life, what their parents told them, or they've had a religious experience or they think some prophecies have been fulfilled or they believe some medieval philosophical proof. But I've never heard anyone say it's true because I wish it to be true.

[uriel1972]

55. heh it's true because I believe it to be true is wishing it to be so.

[marylandblue]

58. Not relevant to my point, but whatever, you can believe what you want

[Lordquinton]

24. Over 2000 years it's clear that not only does the evidance not exist

but it's been constantly eroded, until now where God is just some nebulous concept, like the fruit flavoring in a can of Lacroix.

[dchill]

26. "Discussing Religion Is Hard..."

Because non-believers are automatically assumed to be wrong.

[uriel1972]

28. Well,

we aren't their particular flavour of belief... of course we are wrong and the 75-99% of other people who don't follow their particular flavour of belief.