Respecting religious beliefs

[atheist buddy]

Why is it that in every field of human knowledge, a belief is only respected when it has been established that it's true, but when it comes to religion, we have to respect it even when it's not true?


In the field of history, the belief that the Holocaust never happened is NOT respected. Because that belief is false.

In the field of astronomy, the belief that the moon is made of cheese is NOT respected. Because that belief is false.

So why do the beliefs that Mary was a virgin, or that Jesus came back from the dead, or that Mohammed rode a flying horse, or that Balaal had a talking donkey have to be respected even if they are false?


If I said "Believing the Halocaust didn't happen is as absurd as believing in Peter Pan", nobody would chide me for being disrespectful of a holocaust denier's beliefs.

If I said "Believing the moon is made out of cheese is as absurd as believing in the Tooth Fairy" nobody would chide me for being disresepctful to a moon-made-out-of cheese person's beliefs.

So why do I get scolded for making comparisons between the Talking Donkey and the Gingerbread Man, or the Virgin Birth and the Three Little Piggies?



Is it because people are very emotionally attached to beliefs in talking donkeys and virgin births, and I should be mindful of not hurting their feelings? If that's the case, then what if a holocaust denier is very emotionally attached to his beliefs? Should I refrain from expressing my sincere opinion that his beliefs are absurd, to safeguard his feelings?

Is it because beliefs in talking donkeys and virgin births are held by millions whereas holocaust deniers and people who believe the moon is made of cheese are thankfully very rare? By that token, should I have been respectful of the typical white american's belief about race relations in the 19th century, because those unjustified and inexcusable beliefs were the beliefs of the majority?


Why is there a double standard? Why is belief that Elvis is still alive cause for imediate social ostratization, but belief in the virgin birth respected even by those who don't share that belief?


It seems to me that in all aspects of human discourse, this parameter is used: If a belief is justified, it's respected. If it isn't justified, it is not respected. Why aren't religious claims subject to that same standard?


If I compare the Bible to the Three Little Piggies, the only valid rebuke is that the Bible is a more literarily interesting work of fiction than the Three Little Piggies. Of course, if I compared the Bible to, say, Shakespeare, the inverse would be true, and if anything, I could be accused of insulting Shakespeare.

IF the talking donkey and the virgin birth actually happened, then comparing them to fictional events that didn't happen, is indeed disrespectful. But if the talking donkey and the virgin birth are fictional, how is it disrespectful to compare them to other fictional stories? How is comparing fiction to fiction disrespectful?



Can we agree that there is no universal requirement for respecting somebody's mathematical, scientific, historical, geographical, beliefs if they are unjustified?

Can we agree that while I do have to be respectful to a person who believes 2+2=5, it is perfectly socially acceptable to be disrespectful of the belief itself?

So why can't the same apply to religion? Why is it not ok to say to a Muslim "I respect you as a person, but in my opinion your belief in Mohammed's flying horse is as absurd as a child's belief in Santa's flying reindeer".

[Divine Insight]

This is where I disagree. If the non theist simply says "their beliefs are not true and we have empirical evidence showing they are not true" this is not much different from the theist who claims the Bible is the word of God and the statements in the scriptures are true. Both claims are made without evidence. While all sides can rightfully claim the burden of proof is on he who alleges, when the non theist asserts a claim, he has no less burden than the theist to back up that claim with actual evidence, rather than just stating it exists.

For example, when I claim the Book of Abraham is a fraud, I point to the fact that even Mormon apologists agree the Egyptian texts it was supposedly translated from do not correspond to the English 'translation' Joseph Smith claimed to have made. The Mormon response to this is that Smith meant "inspired by" when he claimed to have "translated" the text. This 'he meant "inspired by" argument' is obviously weak and borne of desperation, but that is a conclusion for the audience to make. I suggest that rather than simply make a claim, we should back it up with specific citations to evidence, rather than just claim it is so. This applies to non theists as well as theists. Whether or not the debater has marshalled evidence for his argument is a conclusion that is not determined by a mere claim the conclusion is right. Facts, not claims should determine the outcome of the argument.

Simply claiming "Fraud!" is objectionable. Providing, not just claiming, evidence to back up the assertion is what is convincing. Ridicule is more effective when it is backed up by the presentation of evidence instead of merely 'poking fun' and assuming we have made some definitive argument.

The problem I have with the whole religious shebang (Abrahamic religions in particular), is the fact that they have already been disproved time and time again. The fact that they are false has been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt.

We shouldn't even need to "argue" or "debate" whether these religions are true or not. They are clearly false. What we should be debating about is what do to about it now that we know they are false.

Ok, Dan, to satisfy the need for evidence rather than mere claims, this is why we can know beyond any reasonable doubt the the Abrahamic religions are false:

1. The claim that the sin, evil, or any manner of imperfections came into being because of a "Fall from Grace" of humans is clearly false.

It has been scientifically demonstrated that living organism that ate each other existed long before mankind ever showed up on this planet. Disease and death existed before mankind showed up on this planet. These things could not have been the result of mankind falling from grace from some God.

These fables are as false as Greek mythology. We don't even need evolution for this fact to be true.

2. In addition to the fact that mankind cannot be responsible for the evil in this world we also have evolution as an explanation for how man came to be.

Once again, we have a scientifically demonstrated mechanism for how mankind evolved naturally from lower animals. We are primates. This has been scientifically proven to be true by knowledge of genetics. Not only are we primates, but we are also members of the animal family of mammalians. We are animals. Just like all the other animals on this planet. It's a proven fact. Again evolution doesn't even need to be true for this to be true, but we actually have evolution that explains precisely how this works.

We also have observational evidence that things constantly evolve. Our very own food crops and domesticated animals prove evolution in action. We also see it in viruses, bacteria and insects. We have proof that life evolves and was not created to only reproduce it's own 'kind'.

To argue about these things is a waste of everyone's time. They have already been well-established truths.

3. It should be clearly obvious to any intelligent person that the moralities held up in these ancient Abraham myths are simply not moral. To argue otherwise is absurd.

The Bible condones treating women like chattel. Buying and selling slaves, and even beating slaves. It condones killing people who don't believe in the religion. It even condones stoning our unruly children to death.

I mean, come on, does any intelligent person truly believe any of this stuff represent "divine morality"?

It's obviously false, and not divine.

4. In the Bible where does this all-wise all-intelligent God ever truly do anything that is seriously wise or intelligent?

All the way through the Bible this God uses crude barbaric means to teach people lessons. He curses Satan to crawl on his belly and eat dirt. He curses Eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth. He turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt.

Where does this God ever actually do anything positive or constructive? Or anything that can be said to be "Supremely Wise". Everything this God is portrayed as doing is precisely what we would expect that ignorant barbarians who wrote this stuff to do.

There is nothing in these myths that even remotely resembles anything that should be expected from a "Supremely Wise" divine entity. Everything this God does could have been the brainstorm of a barbaric idiot.

That's just the cold hard facts.

5. Where does this infinitely wise God actually SOLVE any problems?

This God curses people with all these barbaric things but never solves a problem ever. He finally drowns out the bulk of humanity and even that doesn't solve a thing. It solves NOTHING.

So it's a story of a God who can't even solve a problem.

6. In Christianity the religion becomes extremely contradictory.

We already have enough reasons to dismiss the Old Testament as being utterly absurd. But now with the New Testament we even have more absurdities.

The very idea that the very same God who once hated the world so much that he drown out all of humanity now has a change of heart and loves the world so much that he sacrifices his only begotten son to save it.

This would be a God who can't even make up his mind what he wants to do. He doesn't know whether he wants to drown his creation or save them. Moreover, why would he need to "sacrifice" anything to save his own creation? That's not only an oxymoron, but is also suggest that this God is desperate.

Sacrificing your only begotten Son to save someone can only be an act of pure desperation. Therefore Christianity is a religion that basically proclaims that our creator is now desperate to try to "save" mankind. From his very own wrath no less.

I don't particularly need to tell people that this is a "laughable" religion but holy mackerel, a God who needs to sacrifice his own son to save humanity from his own wrath is so absolutely absurd that if it wasn't for the fact that so many people take this stuff seriously it would indeed be hilarious.

It's not laughable at all for the very reason that so many people do take it seriously. It's actually quite sad to think that people take this stuff so seriously. It's also scary and dangerous that they take such an absurd idea so seriously.

7. The contradictions don't even stop there.

The Bible is filled with extreme contradictions. But IMHO two of these contradictions stick out above all the rest.

The first one I've already described. This God first hates the world so much he drowns out humanity, and then he turns back around and loves the world so much that he sacrifices his own son to save the world from his own wrath.

That's actually a double-contradiction. The first being the contradiction that he both hates and loves the world so much simultaneously. And the second one being that he has to sacrifice his own son to save the world from his own wrath.

But now with Jesus we have yet another major contradiction. Jesus himself is portrayed as having said that he did not come to change the laws and that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law. And then he continues to go about changing the laws dramatically.

In the OT we are supposed to judge our neighbors and stone sinners to death.

In the NT Jesus tells use not to judge others and not to cast the first stone.

This would be OK, if Jesus had actually said that he came to change the laws, but the contradiction is that he claimed that he didn't come to change the laws and that not one jot or tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass.

So these fables just shoot themselves in the foot at every turn of the page.

~~~~~

I could go on and on, but I think I've offered enough "evidence" for why we can know that these fables are clearly false.

~~~~~

We shouldn't be arguing or debating whether or not these fables are false. Instead we should be discussing and debating what to do about it.

How do we move forward from these false myths?

How do we get out from under them without having to continually pretend to "debate" their validity when they have already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be as false as they can be?

How in the world do we ever get out from under these ancient barbaric and immoral myths?

Continuing to debate whether they are "true or false" only serves to give the impression that such debates are actually meaningful, when in fact they aren't.

These myths are clearly false. There is no question about it. They are not the directives, commandments, and desires of some Jealous-God who will be mean to anyone who doesn't believe in him.

That's just absolute absurdity. These myths have no more validity than Greek mythology.

We need to move forward and discuss what we can do about it now that we know they are false.

How can we recover from this and help people realize that they have been duped by a bunch of ancient barbaric male-chauvinists?

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 37 by Danmark]

good points but the problem is if you make up an assertion, like....god exists, the non believer isn't burdened with the responsibility to unprove the assertion that god exists. it has always been he who makes an extraordinary claim must present the proof, not the opposite. Anyone can play that game.

I have a few favs;

I assert that venus is hollow and full of little blue men that fart magical sprinkles into the great sky cauldron creating life on earth. Disprove it, can't? Then it must be true and you must respect my belief.

or to spin it the other way,

I can't disprove bigfoot, aliens, fairies or the loch ness monster either, and that fact doesn't make them real either.

I respectfully disagree with your statement, "If the non theist simply says "their beliefs are not true and we have empirical evidence showing they are not true" this is not much different from the theist who claims the Bible is the word of God and the statements in the scriptures are true. Both claims are made without evidence."

Empirical evidence is just that, empirical evidence.
....
your thoughts?

I think we are in agreement; however I don't believe you understood me entirely.
Your argument does not account for the fact I wrote:

the burden of proof is on he who alleges

The other area where I think you have misunderstood my position is that I said it is not enough to merely claim we have empirical evidence, but that we should cite to that evidence. Any one can claim to have empirical evidence. The issue is whether such evidence is demonstrated. I think we are in agreement, but to make the point more clear, it is not enough to claim one has empirical evidence the moon is made of green cheese. The burden is on the person making the claim that he in fact can demonstrate he actually has such evidence.

On a side note, the moon is definitely not made of green cheese. The cheese is Swiss, is not green, and has a pale yellow hue. At the moment I do not have a citation to empirical evidence to back up my claim. All I can do for now is refer you to your own eyesight as to both the color and the holes you can observe.

I think that in the areas where we agree, our agreement is complete.

Where we disagree, I think it's because you're splitting hairs. Or rather, in saying that it's not enough to claim there is empirical evidence that people aren't born of virgins but that one has to show the empirical evidence, you are forgetting one crucial fact: We HAVE presented that evidence.

But, hey, I'll be glad to have that debate again with any theist willing to have it. Opening up a new thread now.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 28:

...
I just figure (from the POV of a believer in things that you--metaphorically, of course--spit on) that if you don't refrain from the spitting, you aren't interested in discussing things rationally, trying to get me to see reason or even speak together without drawing weapons with sharp edges.

As well, I propose that if theists could find them an eraser, there'd be no need for me to spit.

It's this sort of "respect my beliefs, but don't bother asking my beliefs to respect you" sort of mentality to which I'm most opposed.

I'm certainly willing to refrain from spitting, if it was, folks wouldn't present as some great moral guide a book that spits on me.

Without this ancient tome, or at least its slanderous parts, I couldn't work up enough spit to stick a joint together.

So I guess it's about what the goal is, for the (metaphorical, of course) spitter upon things. If all you want to do is express your opinion and make enemies, ensure that believers would rather chew on a Chihuly than talk to you, and pretty much cement their beliefs, fine.

Such folks started it with their ancient tome, their ancient, and current actions, and the fact they hold them some beliefs they're all proud of - only among those beliefs - is that I'm some kinda "fool" for not going along with 'em.


To heck with that crowd.

To heck with the slanders and libels they revere.

To heck with anyone who, here in the year 2014 - still ain't learned what it is, an eraser.


These slanders and libels are there for all to see. I didn't put 'em there.

They're often presented "without context". As well, they're often considered "within context".

My experience is, that whether such slanders are quoted within, or without all the context, when the sentiment is delivered by the heel of a boot - or worse - well then, there we go.

Erase your slanders.

Remove the slab from your eye.

Or, keep getting all "put upon" when folks such as myself point out these slanderous, libelous claims - and how so many Christians revere the book makin' 'em, to the point they call 'em the literal word of God.

It is a bit of a truism that nothing cements a position like opposition to it, and the nastier the form of the opposition, the more stubborn the holder of it is.

As we see from the so many Christians who vehemently, and actively seek to infect government and minds with their own slanderous, libelous, and goofy ideas.


I will not give the Christian a pass on this - as it is, the words are there.

Don't like your slanders and libels thrown back at you?

Erase your own.

Remove 'em from your holy texts, such that none may ever point to them in oppressing, depressing, or otherwise harming another.


Or, just leave 'em there -


And face the ridicule, derision, and disrespect I contend such beliefs deserve.

Shoot, without the Roman persecution of the Christians, the whole thing might have fizzled out. People just automatically figure that if everybody hates something THAT much, and if the opposition is THAT nasty, there must be something to it. Conspiracy theories are bred in the genetic code of Homo sapiens sapiens. We think too much.

Ain't it a goofy belief, to present all this "Christians being persecuted", while deliberately omitting instances of Christians doing them all the persecuting.

You betray any sense of fair and balanced when you play this "But, but, we've been put-upon" argument.

I dare say, if the Christian'd do him a bit more thinking, it wouldn't be "too much". In fact, it might be just enough so it is, he ain't got him no goofy beliefs no more.

But if you treat the ideas with some, at least surface, respect, you can draw the believer into discussions and he may change his mind in spite of himself, given that he isn't on guard quite as strictly.

I see no need to play psychological games with anyone who takes their goofy beliefs seriously.

On guard or not, the truth doesn't care.

All that flies out the window, of course, if the spitting is more than metaphorical. I've been on the receiving end of that, too.

You don't know the half of it.

I grew up in the Bible Belt.

An atheist. And too stupid to hush up when that's what it is I mighta shoulda done.
>the edit was here, cause it was here that it was, that the edit needed to be<

Lacking ability to confirm anything, I'll just leave that there.


Beliefs respected?

Not when it's based on goofy thinking, I won't.

With so much of Christianity, it's goofy beliefs based on goofy thinking.

Codified in, "Well it is, it's God calling ya a fool, not me!"

Goofy beliefs are the problem.

And it's them holdin' them goofy beliefs we all, I contend, owe it to reason to point out at every opportunity.



Here's the proverbial "win-win" for everybody...

Erase those errant and libelous parts of the Bible.

Then, when you're down to that last page of words, notice how there, where it says some dead dude hopped up and went down to Denny's for breakfast?

Erase that page.

Then, well how 'bout that, you'll have no more reason to fret folks thinking it is, it's you having goofy beliefs.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 30:

It is not logical to use extremist jihadist Muslim actions to excuse using vile and insulting epithets to refer to, say...the virgin birth or that God the Father just might love us.

This atheist sees little difference in this, and the Christian who reveres a book that calls me a "fool", among other slanders.

I find it just as "extremist" to promote the virtues of any book so full of "vile, insulting epithets".

What you are doing is claiming that because the apple is rotten, you need to trash the orange.

Why not just "trash" biblical language that insults others?

Too much work?

Too much like offering respect?

[bjs]

Within Christianity we have this idea about treating other people the way you want to be treated.

So, how would you like to be treated?

Should theists of all persuasions be disrespectful to you because you lack belief in God (or believe there is no God, or however you want to phrase it). After all, you have not actually shown that religion in general, or specifically Christianity, is not true. You have just said it a lot.

If you would be upset with someone suggesting that lacking belief in God is the same as being unable to know that Peter Pan is fictional, then you should not suggest that belief in God is the same as being unable to know that Peter Pan is fictional.

Of course, at the end of the day Christians have the whole thing about turning the other cheek, even if we dont always follow through. So you can go ahead and be disrespectful and we will have to toughen up.

[atheist buddy]

Within Christianity we have this idea about treating other people the way you want to be treated.

So, how would you like to be treated?

I would like for my fellow humans to respect me enough to tell me bluntly if my beliefs are misguided, most especially if my beliefes were of the type that historically have lead to inquisitions, honor killings, witch trials, homophobia, terrorism, war, retardation of science, spread of AIDS, banning of life saving medical research, corruption of school curricula, genital mutilations, torture, and 2 hour long Catholics Mass (that last one was an attempt at humor).

Should theists of all persuasions be disrespectful to you because you lack belief in God (or believe there is no God, or however you want to phrase it). After all, you have not actually shown that religion in general, or specifically Christianity, is not true. You have just said it a lot.

I have affirmed the self-evident fact that donkeys can't talk and decomposing corpses can't come back to life. I honestly thought that in an industrialized country in the 21st century, that was common knowledge. Apparently some of us still live in the bronze age. So, even though the evidence against the veracity of Christianity, and the lack of evidence for its veracity have been dicussed at nauseum, I'd be delighted to go through it again. Please see my recent post about the virgin birth. Go ahead and refute it.

If you would be upset with someone suggesting that lacking belief in God is the same as being unable to know that Peter Pan is fictional, then you should not suggest that belief in God is the same as being unable to know that Peter Pan is fictional.

I would absolutely NOT be upset if somebody made such an outlandish claim. I'd be delighted, becuase it would be a fantastic opportunity to obliterate that person in a debate. Barricading oneself beyond the fictitious wall of "taking offense" at empirical statements is the sole province of those who have no empirical counterargument.

Would you be offended if I said that Mexico is north of the United States? Of course you wouldn't. You'd just show me a map.

Of course, at the end of the day Christians have the whole thing about turning the other cheek, even if we dont always follow through. So you can go ahead and be disrespectful and we will have to toughen up.

All of a sudden, after a killing spree two millenia long, where you had total and unmitigated license to torture and kill any "heretic" who dared oppose your point of view, you've been slowly dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, where you still are the majority, you still hold undue influence over our political system, you still get to demand unequal and unfair concessions based on your beliefs, your churches still don't pay any taxes, but where you get occasionally called on your fairy tales, and you are asked to defend them on their own merits. And you have the temerity to play the victim card, and act hurt when those you've oppressed for the entire duration of your religion's existence finally tell you in no uncertain terms that you are and have always been dead wrong in your beliefs.

Your attempt to take on this transparently fictituous role of patient and resilient victims of my tirades, is woefully misguided. If this conversation had happened just a couple dozen generations ago, you'd be sending inquisitors to my house right now.

[Zzyzx]

.

Within Christianity we have this idea about treating other people the way you want to be treated.

Within MANY religions, philosophies, and ideologies the "Ethic of Reciprocity" (AKA "Golden Rule) is featured " and many predate Christianity (but many Christians seem unaware that they have no monopoly or special place in that regard)

So, how would you like to be treated?

Therein lies a major flaw in the Ethic of Reciprocity / Golden Rule " Should a masochist who wishes to receive pain treat others as though they wished to receive pain?

Should theists of all persuasions be disrespectful to you because you lack belief in God (or believe there is no God, or however you want to phrase it).

How people act is beyond my control " but I will say "I can't keep you from messing with me, but if you do I promise to make it very painful for you."

Oddly, I do not have to say that verbally for people to seem to understand (and find a softer target).

After all, you have not actually shown that religion in general, or specifically Christianity, is not true. You have just said it a lot.

What I actually say is that NO religion can be shown to be anything more than imagination, conjecture, hearsay, emotionalism, opinion, etc. Would you care to try to dispute that position?

If you would be upset with someone suggesting that lacking belief in God is the same as being unable to know that Peter Pan is fictional, then you should not suggest that belief in God is the same as being unable to know that Peter Pan is fictional.

It does not upset me in the least for someone to make that statement.

Of course, at the end of the day Christians have the whole thing about turning the other cheek, even if we dont always follow through.

Christians claim a LOT of things that lack follow-through. That is known as failure to walk the talk.

So you can go ahead and be disrespectful and we will have to toughen up.

Many religionists regard honest disagreement with their claims and stories as being disrespectful " and being asked to provide evidence that they speak truth as being disrespectful.

Yes, Christians will probably need to "toughen up" since they are losing their majority position (religion is declining) in many nations " particularly those nations that emphasize education, science, technology, etc.

[atheist buddy]

So, please do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder.

Wow. WOW. "Do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder".

It's remarkable how your statement perfectly describes the exact opposite of reality.

Believers are MOST DEFINITELY getting away with murder.

It's estimated by human rights groups that 5000 honor killings happen each year.

Believers are literally getting away with murder. Not figuratively. Literally.

And that's right now.

If you look back at history it's even worse. Inquisition, Stalinism, North Korea, Ireland, Crusades, you name it.

Wow. That's interesting. You are including Stalin in with religious folks, are you? North Korea, too?

This is a thought experiment I like to propose:
Imagine there is a time/space machine which automatically teleports you to a major city at a random time in the past. Once you get there, you have to go to the center of the city square and yell out "I used to agree with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority, but not anymore. Now I find those beliefs laughable. Going forward, I will discuss by newfound skepticism with your children".

Here is the game: If you survive saying that, you win. If you get incarcerated, beaten, burned at the stake, tortured, beheaded, hanged or disemboweled, you lose.

Would you be ok with your children getting into that time machine and playing that game?

Uhmn....

er......

I was a Mormon missionary. I pretty much did that. Have a scar to prove it.

Well, actually, what I SAID was "I have something special for you. It's different from your beliefs. Come and listen."

Y'see, I have found a really odd truth. People really don't leave their religion because someone else has insulted it enough. They leave it because they find a different truth that is 'better.' Whether that is a different religious belief, or some atheistic approach to logical thought, it doesn't matter much. People go TO things, not run FROM them.

Perhaps you could try that approach? You might be a wee bit less likely to be beheaded.

Or not.....

but you WILL get more 'converts.'

What's my point? Throughout most of the world and most of history, disagreeing with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority (Christianity, Islam, Stalinism, Kim Jung Un veneration, Holiness of Japanese Emperor, holines of Pharaoh, Judaism, Voodoo, Hinduism, ecc) was and still is the most dangerous social behavior a human being could engage in.

Yes. So....why deliberately make it harder on yourself? it seems to me that if your goal is to get from one side of the enemy camp to another, rescuing a captive or two on the way, the least effective way to do it is to march in all by yourself, beating on your bodhran and shouting insults at the guards.

Of course, again, it's all about what you want out of the exchange, I suppose.

If you are a mass murderer who killed people at least once a month for the last 10 years, it's not very reassuring if you tell me "What? I didn't kill anybody in this neighborhood in the last 7 days. I'm a changed man. There's nothing to fear".

....and the folks in the typical debate forum are all serial murderers, if they happen to be theists, are they?

perhaps you might get an inkling as to why not being quite so melodramatically critical might get you farther?

Similarly, dogmatic people throughout the world and throughout history have systematically murderered, tortured and persecuted those who didn't believe in their dogma (either because they were skeptics or because they believed a different dogma). Now, very recently and for the first time, in very isolated pockets of civilization such as America and Europe, there is an exception to the rule that has been applied for the last 6000 years throughout the globe. And you expect me relax, and enjoy the fact that I'm not being persecuted right this minute?

Yep.

Or rather, I personally would appreciate it if, not being persecuted right this minute, you didn't think 'wow, I guess it's my turn!"

The thing is, m'friend, you really don't have a clue, personally, what 'persecution' is.

I, on the other hand, do. Not to the extent that some Christians in Muslim controlled governments do, certainly, but I do know what it's like to carry real, physical scars, have been refused employment, stuff like that.

You are in absolutely no danger of being jailed, harrassed, killed, shot at, stoned (with real rocks) refused jobs or anything else because you want to rant against some belief you disagree with in this forum.

So how is it brave, or idealistic, or 'candid' for you (or anybody else) to use the language I have seen here to describe beliefs you don't agree with? Would you speak your mind in such a manner if someone WERE about to injure you?

I can ask, because I have already proven that I will speak of my beliefs in the face of just such opposition. If I choose to use language that is 'softer' than you seem called on to employ, it's not because I'm afraid, or because my feelings are 'less.' It's because I actually want people to listen and to engage in conversation.

Now as far as you saying,

that's not how human biology works

I absolutely agree with you on that statement, without a doubt. But, if there is a God, who created us out of nothing, along with the universe, do you think it would be possible that He is not bound by the laws of the universe?

Sure. IF an entity that could bend the natural laws existed, then the natural laws could be bent.

Is there any reason to believe that such an entity exists or that such bendings of natural law ever happen? NO.

Think about it. You're saying "That which is impossible could be possible if we assume that that which isn't true, is true".

You know that an argument is bunk when it can be used to justify laughable propositions just as well as it can be used to justify your religious belief.

You can say "Virgin births are impossible, but they could happen if an entity (Yahweh) that can make the impossible possible existed".

Except, of course, that virgin births are entirely possible and well within modern medical scientific capability. In fact, 'they' have had to set up rules for possible surrogate mothers to ensure that they DON'T get virgins pregnant...by requiring, in most cases, that a surrogate mother have had at least one previous, successful, birth.

So why are you so insistent that God could not have done what WE can do?

I don't know about you, but there is no way that position is logical.

But in the exact same way you can say "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Allah) that can make the impossible possible existed"

In the exact same way you could say "Delivering gifts to millions of children in a single night on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Santa) that can make the impossible possible existed".

I do NOT mean to compare your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa.

You just, er, did.

I just wish to point out within the narrow scope of my argument, that your position regarding the virgin birth is untenable, in that the very same argument you use to justify it, can also be used to justify equally succesfully the existence of Mohammed's flying horse or Santa's flying reindeer.

Except of course that you picked the one miracle that we can repeat ourselves, and thus you can't say that God could not have done it. You should have picked something we haven't been able to duplicate. yet.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am in no way comparing your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa. I believe that I have the right to if I want to, but I am nonetheless not doing it. I am just making a very narrow point about how your argument is not valid because it can be used to justify patently false things just as well as it can be used to justify your belief.

Point of logic:

the fact of the thing is entirely independent of logical argument concerning that thing.

If a rock fell out of the sky and made a hole in my back yard, it fell out of the sky and made a hole in my back yard. It doesn't matter how unlikely it was. I doesn't matter who argues with me about it, or whether you manage to change my mind and figure that the hole was 'really' made by the dog who crawled under the hedge.

Doesn't matter what we believe, one way or the other, to the facts of the matter. Schrodinger's cat notwithstanding, what we believe does not affect what is, only what we think is.

And you could be wrong about it.

Given that, it might be a good idea to...not pretend that you respect and admire beliefs with which you do not agree, but rather to treat the believers in those things kindly, so that they, in return, will treat you kindly.

Whichever one of you turns out to be right, if either one of you is.

I'm about to go to bed. I'll reply to this whole post, but for now I just want to address the unfortunate argument you're making that it's somehow not valid to doubt that a God caused a virgin birth becuase we now have the technology for artificial embrio implantation.

Wow.

Here's the difference between the empirical claim that we can induce a "virgin birth" of sorts, and the empirical claim that a God can:

We are real. God is imaginary.

Real entities can perform real actions. Imaginary ones can't.

To say "We currently have the technology to implant an embrio in a virgin's womb, therefore God can do it too, and therefore the Virgin Birth story is real" is just as nonsensical as saying "We currently have the technology to make a horse fly (you strap him to a helicopter), therefore God can do it too, and therefore the story of Mohammed ascending to heaven on a flying horse is real". I could have made the exact same analogy using Rudolph and Santa, incidentally. Not having done so will be the extent of my attempt at civility this evening.

People wonder why I don't even bother arguing the specifics of why religious beliefs are bunk, and skip directly to sociological questions such as"why they still believe it", and "why do they expect their inane beliefs to be respected". Look at the kind of arguments they come up with, Danmark! Do you really think that replying to their individual absurd arguments one by one will help at all?

[Divine Insight]

Should theists of all persuasions be disrespectful to you because you lack belief in God (or believe there is no God, or however you want to phrase it).

In a sense they are whether they realize it or not. The very dogma that the theists claim to believe in and support demands that those who disbelieve in God are not worthy of respect. Therefore by supporting this dogma you are basically supporting what it stands for:

Psalms.14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

By supporting this dogma you are indeed supporting this view of disrespect toward non-believers. Unless of course you disagree with the dogma. But that would be an oxymoron since you are claiming to believe it in and support it.

So it seems to me that you can't have it both ways. You can't do both, support the dogma, and pretend that you aren't supporting it simultaneously.

In the New Testament this sentiment is regurgitated in even more fowl language by Paul.


Romans 1
[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

It can hardly get more foul and disrespectful than this. Backbiters? Without natural affection? Haters of God? Disobedient to parents?

Yet if you claim to support this dogma, then although you may not mean to, you are indeed supporting this dogma.

You are supporting a dogma that is extremely disrespectful toward non-believers in this God.

So for you to wash your hands of this whilst simultaneously supporting it is an oxymoron.

After all, you have not actually shown that religion in general, or specifically Christianity, is not true. You have just said it a lot.

I personally feel that the Abrahamic religions in general have been sufficiently proven to be clearly false (as I have just outlined in my previous post). And Christianity in particular. Jesus himself is an extreme contradiction to the God portrayed in the Old Testament. He's even a contradiction to his own words. Christianity proves itself to be false. It doesn't even need any help from science or anything outside of its own doctrine to be proven false.

[Realworldjack]

So, please do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder.

Wow. WOW. "Do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder".

It's remarkable how your statement perfectly describes the exact opposite of reality.

Believers are MOST DEFINITELY getting away with murder.

It's estimated by human rights groups that 5000 honor killings happen each year.

Believers are literally getting away with murder. Not figuratively. Literally.

And that's right now.

If you look back at history it's even worse. Inquisition, Stalinism, North Korea, Ireland, Crusades, you name it.


This is a thought experiment I like to propose:
Imagine there is a time/space machine which automatically teleports you to a major city at a random time in the past. Once you get there, you have to go to the center of the city square and yell out "I used to agree with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority, but not anymore. Now I find those beliefs laughable. Going forward, I will discuss by newfound skepticism with your children".

Here is the game: If you survive saying that, you win. If you get incarcerated, beaten, burned at the stake, tortured, beheaded, hanged or disemboweled, you lose.

Would you be ok with your children getting into that time machine and playing that game?


What's my point? Throughout most of the world and most of history, disagreeing with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority (Christianity, Islam, Stalinism, Kim Jung Un veneration, Holiness of Japanese Emperor, holines of Pharaoh, Judaism, Voodoo, Hinduism, ecc) was and still is the most dangerous social behavior a human being could engage in.

If you are a mass murderer who killed people at least once a month for the last 10 years, it's not very reassuring if you tell me "What? I didn't kill anybody in this neighborhood in the last 7 days. I'm a changed man. There's nothing to fear".

Similarly, dogmatic people throughout the world and throughout history have systematically murderered, tortured and persecuted those who didn't believe in their dogma (either because they were skeptics or because they believed a different dogma). Now, very recently and for the first time, in very isolated pockets of civilization such as America and Europe, there is an exception to the rule that has been applied for the last 6000 years throughout the globe. And you expect me relax, and enjoy the fact that I'm not being persecuted right this minute?

Now as far as you saying,

that's not how human biology works

I absolutely agree with you on that statement, without a doubt. But, if there is a God, who created us out of nothing, along with the universe, do you think it would be possible that He is not bound by the laws of the universe?

Sure. IF an entity that could bend the natural laws existed, then the natural laws could be bent.

Is there any reason to believe that such an entity exists or that such bendings of natural law ever happen? NO.

Think about it. You're saying "That which is impossible could be possible if we assume that that which isn't true, is true".

You know that an argument is bunk when it can be used to justify laughable propositions just as well as it can be used to justify your religious belief.

You can say "Virgin births are impossible, but they could happen if an entity (Yahweh) that can make the impossible possible existed".

But in the exact same way you can say "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Allah) that can make the impossible possible existed"

In the exact same way you could say "Delivering gifts to millions of children in a single night on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Santa) that can make the impossible possible existed".

I do NOT mean to compare your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa. I just wish to point out within the narrow scope of my argument, that your position regarding the virgin birth is untenable, in that the very same argument you use to justify it, can also be used to justify equally succesfully the existence of Mohammed's flying horse or Santa's flying reindeer.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am in no way comparing your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa. I believe that I have the right to if I want to, but I am nonetheless not doing it. I am just making a very narrow point about how your argument is not valid because it can be used to justify patently false things just as well as it can be used to justify your belief.

You seem to believe that if we could rid the world of religion, the world would be a safer place. Let me assure you it would not be! There are killings, and murder occurring everyday, all day, that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion! These things occur because we as humans are naturally selfish! If you do not believe this, then I would ask you, "how many children do you have to teach to be selfish?" You do not have to teach any of them how to be selfish because we are all born selfish! This is the reason a child has to be trained in how, not to be selfish. My point is, ridding the world of religion would not in any way have an effect on how safe we would be, the only way to ensure safety would be to rid the world of selfishness! Good luck with that one! You go on to say,

Is there any reason to believe that such an entity exists or that such bendings of natural law ever happen? NO.

Well, let me assure you, this is simply your opinion! I certainly beg to differ! I am not a Christian because I want to be, rather I believe there is reason to believe that Christianity is true! You make a mistake when you say,

But in the exact same way you can say "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven is impossible,

NO! I have not in any way said that was impossible! My question is not at all whether it is possible or not, rather my question is, whether it is true! There is a huge, (very huge), difference! You are the one who is saying, "it is impossible!" Along with saying, "it is impossible for a donkey to talk, or a virgin to give birth." I am saying that, all of the above is possible, including, "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven." I would also include that is "possible that I am wrong!" My question to you is, "is it possible that you could be wrong?" If your answer is, "NO!" My question then would be, "which one of us is in the real world?"