I think Im an atheist.

[vukxfiles]

The evil regimes you mention weren't in the name of atheism. Hitler's and Stalin's regimes weren't in the name of atheism. But every holy war, witch burning, inquisition, catholic child abuse was in the name of religion. So I don't understand how you believers can always try to defend yourselves by saying Hitler was an atheist. So what?? The things he did were not to preserve atheism.

[Flick James]

Don't you guys understand. Atheists go nowhere by debating about religion in a civilized way, because religious people don't. Why let them bash us, and we are not allowed to bash them? They deserve all the bashing we could give them.

Also, what the heck are you guys talking about pyramids and chapels? So people need to believe in something that doesn't exist, be bound by illogical rules, so they can have pyramids?? I say to hell with the pyramids, I'd rather have my liberties.

Nobody can accuse you of debating in a civilized way.

I discussed the issue of religion with Indy for quite a while, with he as a defender of Christianity and myself as a deist with a good amount of disdain for religion. He behaved in a far more civilized, tolerant, and open-minded manner than you seem to even be capable of. I despise religion in general, vukxfiles, but you continue to act in a way far more intolerant and hateful than anything I've seen from religious people in my life through 43 years on this planet, and that's saying alot if you really know how I feel about religion. You've demonstrated yourself to be little more than a hatemonger, and I have yet to see a thoughtful or remotely moving argument from you. What's more you've destroyed what was a meaningful discussion. Such a shame. I would have been you ally if you had an ounce of civility. As it is I'll be bowing out of this thread.

[Rev. Powell]

Atheists go nowhere by debating about religion in a civilized way, because religious people don't.

That's not true.  This thread refutes your theory that religious people can't debate in a civilized way. 

Why let them bash us, and we are not allowed to bash them?

We're having an adult discussion here.  No one was bashing anyone. 

[AndyC]

What I'm finding hard to accept here is vukxfiles' description of religious people and religious belief in general, as some single thing resembling extreme Evangelical Christianity crossed with old-school Catholicism and Islamic Fundamentalism, as these faiths are practiced by their most boneheaded members.

That is a very broad brush to be painting with. There are plenty of belief systems, including mainstream Christian ones, that are nothing like that. Unfortunately, part of respecting the beliefs of others is not getting up in everybody's face with your own beliefs, so you might have to actively seek them out. This is why people who base their opinions of religion on their experience with one church, what they passively observe in the media, or what they glean from history hundreds of years old, get a really warped picture of what it's about. And if they've written off the whole idea of religion as worthless, they'll never be motivated to take a balanced look at what people really do believe and practice, and why.

I do find that people who are aggressively against religion in general - at least those I've encountered - had a bad experience with it growing up.  I used to say similar things for reasons no more noble than wanting to watch cartoons on Sunday morning, and resenting being pulled away from the TV for a couple of hours and forced to change into nice clothes. These views often get established at an age where our viewpoint is narrow and the relative importance of things is not always clear to us. For some people, it's about much more than that, but it's still personal. By the time they grow up, they've had some practice justifying themselves, and their personal beef has become about the good of mankind against dangerous superstitions that cause untold harm. They've built up this hatred that they direct against all religion, in a manner so dismissive and disdainful that they never gain any further understanding of the subject they profess to know so much about. It is very easy to write off others as deluded, misguided, self-serving or downright evil, and never have to trust their knowledge or give any serious thought to anything they might have to say. A person`s viewpoint can thus remain frozen at that childhood level.

It's a lot like the people who make sweeping pronouncements about politicians as justification for not participating in politics or at least staying informed. "I know nothing about the candidates, but they're all the same, democracy is a sham, and all you suckers are wasting your time." It justifies being both opinionated and ignorant at the same time, and makes a virtue of being self-absorbed and lazy.

I'm not saying this is true of all atheists, but it is true of the most aggressive ones I've encountered. They can be as inflexible and dogmatic in their own way as the worst bible-thumping Christian fundamentalist.

[vukxfiles]

OK, so you are saying that we should be open to other beliefs and consider them to be good in a way. So why do religious people automatically dismiss the idea of evolution? Why aren't they more open-minded? So it is bad that us atheists are ignorant, and never consider the good in religion, but it is OK for religious people to be ignorant of science, even though science is right.

Yes it is, because a lot of basic things we are familiar with today, religion was wrong about it. Thanks to science we know it is impossible to create a woman out of a man's rib (even if you'd consider cloning, it wouldn't work because men have XY chromosomes and women have XX), it is impossible for matter to be created out of nothing, it is impossible for a virgin to give birth (unless the embryo is implanted or unless sperm got into her vagina without penetration).

Oh yeah, and might i mention again the stupid rules. Is it necessary that a priest can't have sex? Why the hell not, it is the most important characteristic of every living thing on the planet. And there is no objective reason for that rule. The same goes with LOTS of other rules in religion.

[The Gravekeeper]

OK, so you are saying that we should be open to other beliefs and consider them to be good in a way. So why do religious people automatically dismiss the idea of evolution? Why aren't they more open-minded? So it is bad that us atheists are ignorant, and never consider the good in religion, but it is OK for religious people to be ignorant of science, even though science is right.

Yes it is, because a lot of basic things we are familiar with today, religion was wrong about it. Thanks to science we know it is impossible to create a woman out of a man's rib (even if you'd consider cloning, it wouldn't work because men have XY chromosomes and women have XX), it is impossible for matter to be created out of nothing, it is impossible for a virgin to give birth (unless the embryo is implanted or unless sperm got into her vagina without penetration).

Oh yeah, and might i mention again the stupid rules. Is it necessary that a priest can't have sex? Why the hell not, it is the most important characteristic of every living thing on the planet. And there is no objective reason for that rule. The same goes with LOTS of other rules in religion.

*facepalm*

Most religious people are not Christian (it is the largest single religious group in the world, however, with around a third of the population following it. A  THIRD. The other 2/3 are of various), and many Christians are perfectly okay with the theory of evolution and other scientific findings. It's a vocal minority that have a problem with science. There are also branches of Christianity that allow their religious leaders to have families.

It sounds like you have a problem with Catholicism, but even then some of your arguments fall flat. Yes, the priests are not allowed to sex, yes, the Vatican rejects the theory of evolution, but it's inaccurate to say that they don't support science. The Vatican donates ever year to medical research, and members of the Catholic faith are free to donate their money if they so choose as they see fit.

To top that off, the Vatican can't speak for all its members. As much it likes to think it does, every member is free to decide for themselves exactly what the believe in since the Church doesn't have the means to monitor their thoughts and every day actions. Actual beliefs in Catholicism range from the orthodox "the Bible is right, science is wrong" stance all the way to the idea that there is a God and the Bible didn't get everything right/is a book of metaphors and fables.

[Flick James]

OK, so you are saying that we should be open to other beliefs and consider them to be good in a way.

Nope. Not saying that at all. I'm not open to religious beliefs either. I'm very confident in my deist beliefs. My open-mindedness comes from accepting others for who they are and not being guilty of the same judgmental attitudes that I find deplorable in many religious people. End of story. You seem even MORE judgmental than most people of faith I run into, and, like I said, that's saying alot, because I've known some very judgemental "fire and brimstone" types. My beef was with you referring to yourself as an open-minded person when you so clearly appear not to be.

So why do religious people automatically dismiss the idea of evolution? Why aren't they more open-minded?

They don't. Some dismiss evolutionary theory altogether, and some have incorporated it into their beliefs. Your blanket assumption is again an indication of your narrow-minded view. Incidentally, I would love more people of faith to be more open-minded than they are, but that's not my decision to make, nor my judgment to make, oh ye of libertine inclinations.

So it is bad that us atheists are ignorant, and never consider the good in religion, but it is OK for religious people to be ignorant of science, even though science is right.

Science is right? Few people respect science more than I, but the statement "science is right" would seem to suggest you think that what was deemed scientifically true 200 years ago is true now. Do you really believe that? Science makes discoveries that disprove previous held "truths of science" on a regular basis. Some refer to it as the "scientific half-life," the period of time it takes for half of what was considered scientifically proven to be disproven or replaced by newer evidence. Science fumbles less than religion, in my own personal opinion, but certainly fumbles. "Science is right" is the intellectual equivalent of "the Bible is the Word of God."

Oh yeah, and might i mention again the stupid rules. Is it necessary that a priest can't have sex? Why the hell not, it is the most important characteristic of every living thing on the planet. And there is no objective reason for that rule. The same goes with LOTS of other rules in religion.

Fine. That still doesn't prove the validity of atheism. I certainly hope you will come to this conclusion on your own sooner or later, but you can't validate your own beliefs simply by pointing out what you think is silly or ignorant in another's. I think that's a stupid dogmatic system as well. But what does that prove? That humans are guilty of being stupid? You seem to be laboring under the assumption that removing religion from society will magically cure it of it's ills. The problem with humanity's faults is humanity's faults. Remove religion and they're still there. Embracing reason was what helped pull humanity out of the Dark Ages, a time dominated by supersticion and ignorance. Embracing reason is how humanity will devolop, not through bashing people for their beliefs.

[AndyC]

OK, so you are saying that we should be open to other beliefs and consider them to be good in a way. So why do religious people automatically dismiss the idea of evolution?

Again, attributing the beliefs of certain branches of Christianity to all religions. Many, many Christians and adherents of other religions do not subscribe to creationism, and consider the anti-evolution people to be extreme in their beliefs.

Yes it is, because a lot of basic things we are familiar with today, religion was wrong about it. Thanks to science we know it is impossible to create a woman out of a man's rib (even if you'd consider cloning, it wouldn't work because men have XY chromosomes and women have XX), it is impossible for matter to be created out of nothing, it is impossible for a virgin to give birth (unless the embryo is implanted or unless sperm got into her vagina without penetration).

Whether you're for or against religion, nitpicking the plausibility of various accounts in scripture misses the point entirely. Again, plenty of people who study the Bible do not see it as something to be taken as a 100% literal, factual account. Context is very important in understanding scripture. And as far as I'm concerned, religious beliefs should grow and change with our knowledge. I assure you, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Oh yeah, and might i mention again the stupid rules. Is it necessary that a priest can't have sex? Why the hell not, it is the most important characteristic of every living thing on the planet. And there is no objective reason for that rule. The same goes with LOTS of other rules in religion.

Celibacy is one thing, specific to Catholicism and maybe a few other religions. Rabbis marry, Protestant ministers marry, Anglican priests marry, Episcopal priests marry, and I believe Orthodox priests can be married, and that's just off the top of my head. And if one is willing to look for reasons, celibacy does serve a purpose, if only to ensure that a priest's number one priority is the parishioners. I don't agree with it, but I understand the reasoning behind it, and that somebody didn't just pull it out of his ass without thinking about it. Whether the rule still makes sense is another matter. And there are a lot of Catholics trying to change that rule, because they don't agree with it.

As for the "lots of other rules in religion" perhaps you'd care to make a list.

I did not say Atheists were ignorant. I said YOU personally are ignorant on the specific subject of religious beliefs and practices. You don't even know who believes what. If you want to argue something I disagree with, that's fine with me, but I do ask that you do your homework and actually know what you're talking about.

[Jim H]

And as far as I'm concerned, religious beliefs should grow and change with our knowledge. I assure you, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

I like the idea of this, I guess, but I find it baffling when people of the book, that is religions with what is essentially a text book they follow, can continuously reinvent what was literally set in stone to suit more modern sensibilities.  Well, I guess I don't find it so much as baffling, as  evidence of the man made nature of said books.  I'm glad people do it though, as I feel the morality of much of the bible (and most other ancient religious texts) is repugnant.  

The obvious prevalence of this attitude (I'd say 95% of Christians couldn't quote either variant of the Ten Commandments, and look more to society and culture for their beliefs and mores than the bible), not to mention the the high degree of syncretism in modern America with other quasi-religious and religious beliefs, is going to be a huge factor in the future of religious thought here.  I don't think traditional Christianity is going to die off or anything, but I do think its importance is going to continue to decline.

[vukxfiles]

So how can you win the debate by being civilised? The other side is gonna pretend like they understand you, but they will still think you are wrong. I could have joined the debate peacefully, and wrote that I understand and admire religious belief, but I would still hate it "from the bottom of my heart". Both sides do their best to win the debate, and the main focus of the atheist/religious side is to prove they are right.

[Flick James]

So how can you win the debate by being civilised? The other side is gonna pretend like they understand you, but they will still think you are wrong. I could have joined the debate peacefully, and wrote that I understand and admire religious belief, but I would still hate it "from the bottom of my heart". Both sides do their best to win the debate, and the main focus of the atheist/religious side is to prove they are right.

Welcome to life. Glad you've joined us.

[Flick James]

So how can you win the debate by being civilised? The other side is gonna pretend like they understand you, but they will still think you are wrong. I could have joined the debate peacefully, and wrote that I understand and admire religious belief, but I would still hate it "from the bottom of my heart". Both sides do their best to win the debate, and the main focus of the atheist/religious side is to prove they are right.

Besides, neither one is going to prove to the other that they are right. It will never happen. Why? Because neither side is "right."

I AM!

[vukxfiles]

Then what is the point of "peaceful" conversation if everyone already knows we won't get anywhere with it?

[Rev. Powell]

Then what is the point of "peaceful" conversation if everyone already knows we won't get anywhere with it?

Ask the folks who love to debate politics.  Sometimes I don't understand it myself.  If you're truly set and unalterable in your opinions, and not willing to learn from people who hold different beliefs, then you get nowhere through either friendly conversation or confrontation.

Still, it's much more pleasant than unpeaceful conversation. 

Hows this for a potential benefit from peaceful conversation: you can learn from the other guy and adjust your own beliefs? 

[AndyC]

So how can you win the debate by being civilised? The other side is gonna pretend like they understand you, but they will still think you are wrong. I could have joined the debate peacefully, and wrote that I understand and admire religious belief, but I would still hate it "from the bottom of my heart". Both sides do their best to win the debate, and the main focus of the atheist/religious side is to prove they are right.

Who said anything about you admiring religious belief? I just ask that you make the effort to know something about the thing you're hating.

As for the main focus being to "win" the debate and be right, what can I say about that? First, the idea that it's a simple, two-sided argument is a gross oversimplification. Second, you can't win a debate with faulty information you pulled out of your butt, no matter how forcefully you shout it at people. And most importantly, a philosophical discussion (which is what we're trying to have here), is not about winning, it's about sharing viewpoints and understanding one another, and maybe coming away a little wiser for the sharing. Nobody's right, there's no winner, everybody is treated with respect - even you, although you might not see it that way.

If there is something humanity really needs to outgrow, it's this childish habit we have of reducing important and complex issues to an Us-vs-Them p!ssing contest. But the case can be made that we've benefited a great deal from that too.

And no matter what you might think of something, hating it from the bottom of your heart does nothing but add a lot of unnecessary stress to your life. You're the one who suffers most for it.