Is it right to confront the religious with their mythology?

[triadboy]

I did do a lot of reading of philospohy, logic, biology (had to get that evolutionary thought in there!), history, archeology, etc.

With that background, do you believe the Bible is the inerrant "Word of God"?

 

[c4ts]

I'm not sure what you mean? It just seemed that atheism was the most rational philosophy to accept. I did do a lot of reading of philospohy, logic, biology (had to get that evolutionary thought in there!), history, archeology, etc.

What philosophy did you come across that was particularly atheistic? And since I assume you have chosen to reject it, perhaps you could say why.

 

[plindboe]

I'm no expert in Christianity, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Is it not a cornerstone in that religion to spread the word to as many as possible? Judgement Day will not come until every person on the planet has made the decision, whether they believe or not. Therefore I see no crime in spreading what we see as the truth, now that they have chosen a religion that forces their beliefs onto others. Though I must say that the more condescending you are in your approach, the more closed people's minds will be. Respect for other people's beliefs is neccessary, or the entire discussion is wasted.

Peter

 

[Clancie]

I didn't want to hijack the thread, but since LCBOY is going to be responding to questions later, I did have two comments about the notion of "pushing our values on others".

1. First, D.C. You said:

Vegatarianism is not nearly as irrational as religion, however it is obvious that humans have evolved to consume meat and it is easier to get certain nutrients from it.

I think vegetarianism is actually a far more rational choice than eating meat, especially in today's world--ethically, environmentally and economically speaking. I wonder why you would assert that meat consumption is the more "rational" choice?

Likewise, this statement requires some support: "It is easier to get certain nutrients from it." "Easier" doesn't mean "only" or "better" way to get them. And how would you compare the "advantages" you see from meat vs. the health hazards it causes due to fat and cholesterol, or the carcinogens that have been found to be formed in the broiling/grilling/frying process?

The point I'm trying to make with the vegetarian analogy (and it applies to me as well) is that considering oneself more rational than other people, doesn't mean its "across the board" in all areas of one's life, or necessarily even true.

And that changing one's ideas or beliefs can, for some, be much easier than changing one's behavior.

 

[triadboy]

Is it not a cornerstone in that religion to spread the word to as many as possible?

Yes, just like their brother religion Islam. So we have fundamentalists from two huge, idiotic religions spreading their fertilizer all over the planet.

 

[Yahzi]

There are two positions here.

On the one hand, it's wrong to diss someone else's poetry. Art is a matter of taste, and if the Holy Nailing gets you moving, that's your perogative. You can be emotionally motivated and illuminated by whatever you want. Some people sit and stare at rocks, for chrissake. There is no call to be a buzzkill when it's not necessary. If somebody offers you a toke, you don't have to give them a lecture, you can just say, "No thanks."

On the other hand, some people seem to think all this crap is actually true. Those people are deeply misguided, and they need to be reminded of it at every oppourtunity, the more annoying the better. They are living a a fantasy, and they need to be poked until they wake up and drive. Life is far to important and dangerous to others to be operated by a sleep-walker trapped in a dream.

I have recently decided that I am not against creches and nativity displays and even crosses on public ground. Man needs art to live, and our public places ought to be stuffed with art. Art of all kinds, that speaks to everybody. The problem is not that there is a baby Jesus on the courthouse lawn at Xmas; it is that there isn't a Buddha, a Krishna, Santa and the elves, Mithra and a tree, snowflake prints by the 3rd graders, graffiti by the taggers, statues, paintings, and a three-piece band.

Art should be everywhere in our lives. The only problem is that some people have mistaken their art for truth. These people are delusional and we need to educate them before they harm themselves or others.

There is nothing wrong with religion as long as you don't think it is actual, physical, truth. Much as there is nothing wrong with country music, magic, or theater, as long as you don't think it is actually true. The problem is not in the existance of metaphyisical symbology: the problem is that some people can't tell the difference between an allegory and a fact.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Much as there is nothing wrong with country music ...... as long as you don't think it is actually true. .

I understand about all that other stuff... but country music?

We gotta' draw the line somewhere..



-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Upchurch]

I understand about all that other stuff... but country music?

We gotta' draw the line somewhere..

What? You don't think it's possible for a man's wife to leave him, his truck to break down and his dog die all in the same day?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What? You don't think it's possible for a man's wife to leave him, his truck to break down and his dog die all in the same day?

I don't have any problem with any of that.. Other than, you left out the part about being on the way to pick up his mom, who was just getting out on parole...

I think you misunderstood my position on that one..

 

[Upchurch]

I think you misunderstood my position on that one..

Probably. I was more interested in making fun of country music than actually advancing any particular position.

 

[Yahzi]

You don't think it's possible

Oh, sure, it's possible. But remember, scientific knowledge deals in the probable.

 

[jimmygun]

I used to hold my tongue whenever the religious nuts started to prattle on. I did not wear my atheism on my sleeve because I felt I didn't have to defend myself to others. If someone asked me about my atheism I was willing to give them an earfull.

Times change and so did I. I have become more millitant. I don't go looking for a verbal battle but if someone says something incredibly stupid, like it was a miracle that bla bla bla happened or that so and so wasn't killed, then I get into their faces about the obvious contradictions they are spouting. At least the religious that know me keep it to themselves.

One thing that bugs me and I have never gotten a straight answer from those that consider it their obligation to spread the word of god, is why do you insist on continuing with your tirade after someone has said they already heard the word and have rejected it as pure flapdoodle? I have lived in this country for 55 years but every door banger assumes that I have never heard the word of god. What gives?

 

[Nitravitro]

I'm not sure what you mean? It just seemed that atheism was the most rational philosophy to accept. I did do a lot of reading of philospohy, logic, biology (had to get that evolutionary thought in there!), history, archeology, etc.

I'm more interested in why you converted (!? is that the right word?) to christianity, from Atheism. I was raised a catholic, but just sorta knew that it wasnt right from the age of about 12, as a result people converting to christianity (as opposed to being indoctrinated into it) baffles me.

Maybe you can clear this up for me

 

[Nitravitro]

oops wrong thread
damn linx

 

[Tricky]

One thing to remember when debating someone with strongly held beliefs is that they are not going to give them up easily, and they are not going to "give an inch" in the argument. However, it is important to try to keep anger out of the picture. If you have influenced a person with your ideas, it will not be immediately apparant. You may have planted some memes which, given time to gestate, will pop out again at unexpected places.

As an example, I give you Jedi Knight, who steadfastly maintained that humans don't have any gravity. Though countless people ridiculed him and provided evidence, he was stalwart. Eventually the conversation died. But then someone remembered about it and brought it up again. Miraculously, he no longer held this opinion (he had been misunderstood all along).

So if you must debate with "closed minded" believers, just don't mistake a grudging reluctance to give up on illogical beliefs as complete rejection of logic. These things take time.

And to LCBOY, welcome to the forum. You will find here that with a few notable exceptions, most atheists (like myself) agree that God is possible, just that the evidence is very poor and self-contradictory. As skeptics, we require strong evidence before we believe in something.

 

[Kashyapa]

I would tend to think that this is reasonably OK as long as you aren't out prostylestizing for your views. Don't fall into the same trap they do. But if somebody gets in your face about, let the dogs out.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

I didn't want to hijack the thread, but since LCBOY is going to be responding to questions later, I did have two comments about the notion of "pushing our values on others".

1. First, D.C. You said:



I think vegetarianism is actually a far more rational choice than eating meat, especially in today's world--ethically, environmentally and economically speaking. I wonder why you would assert that meat consumption is the more "rational" choice?

..."ethically"? Good grief! Apparently we have an animal bias here!

Humans have evolved to have meat in their diet. It is far easier to get certain nutrients from meat and from plants.

However, I am not advocating ONLY meat-- eat both meat and plants.

Restricting one is restricting your intake of nutrients.

Likewise, this statement requires some support: "It is easier to get certain nutrients from it." "Easier" doesn't mean "only" or "better" way to get them. And how would you compare the "advantages" you see from meat vs. the health hazards it causes due to fat and cholesterol, or the carcinogens that have been found to be formed in the broiling/grilling/frying process?

You don't HAVE to eat meat fried or grilled, and if you eat the right meat in the right amount fat and cholesteral shouldn't be much of a problem.

You should eat both, for a balanced diet.

I might as well say if you eat veggies, the pesticides will hurt you.

The point I'm trying to make with the vegetarian analogy (and it applies to me as well) is that considering oneself more rational than other people, doesn't mean its "across the board" in all areas of one's life, or necessarily even true.

But you can still be "more rational" in general, which skeptics are and woo-woos aren't.

And that changing one's ideas or beliefs can, for some, be much easier than changing one's behavior.

Point is...?

 

[Clancie]

Restricting one is restricting your intake of nutrients.

Please explain. What nutrients can you only get from eating meat?

You should eat both, for a balanced diet

Why?

I might as well say if you eat veggies, the pesticides will hurt you

Well, you still get them with the diet you're recommending.
(There are organically grown vegetables easily available here in California anyway, not very expensive any more either).

Clancy: The point I'm trying to make with the vegetarian analogy (and it applies to me as well) is that considering oneself more rational than other people, doesn't mean its "across the board" in all areas of one's life, or necessarily even true.

D.C: But you can still be "more rational" in general, which skeptics are and woo-woos aren't.

Well, you describe "more rational" based on critical thinking that leads to ideas about abstract things, like God. What if I define "more rational" as critical thinking that leads to (1) abstract understanding about the eco system on the planet plus (2) an actual change in behavior in order to put values into meaningful practice in life?

Clancy: And that changing one's ideas or beliefs can, for some, be much easier than changing one's behavior.
DC: Point is...?.

Point is...That it could be a lot easier for people to adopt an ideology that doesn't require them to actually do anything difficult about it (like "I am smarter because I'm an atheist") than it is to understand and change a lifestyle based on a better understanding of environment/economy (like changing your consumption habits through vegetarianism).

 

[stamenflicker]

This board turned me into an atheist. And for that I was thankful.

You put way too much faith in the clowns on their unicycles around here if that is truly the case.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

I have recently decided that I am not against creches and nativity displays and even crosses on public ground. Man needs art to live, and our public places ought to be stuffed with art. Art of all kinds, that speaks to everybody. The problem is not that there is a baby Jesus on the courthouse lawn at Xmas; it is that there isn't a Buddha, a Krishna, Santa and the elves, Mithra and a tree, snowflake prints by the 3rd graders, graffiti by the taggers, statues, paintings, and a three-piece band.

This is most rational thing I've ever seen Yahzi post...

Art should be everywhere in our lives. The only problem is that some people have mistaken their art for truth. These people are delusional and we need to educate them before they harm themselves or others.

You've only included one definition of the word truth-- truth is anything that conveys meaning, and meaning is always layered. I think I would agree more with the notion that delusional people interpret their art as fact. Fact carries a connotation much different than truth. Perhaps I'm arguing over minor details, but a fact is a fact regardless of its shades of meaning, or lack of. Truth however is quite different. Something can be unfactual, yet convey meaning. In that sense it is a truth.

For example, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence," is not a factual statement in the least little bit. The statement does however contain a high degree of truth, should one chose to peel back the layers of meaning.

The problem on this forum, and with sooo many atheists, is the utter inability, stubborness, or insecurity to peel back the layers of anything religious in this manner.

Flick