I really object to people who are all 'tolerant' of other people's beliefs. It's like they've decided "hey, it doesn't even remotely matter what the truth is, the only thing that matters is that we respect all opinions equally." They've invented this moral high ground where there isn't any, based on not taking a side (or at least, not voicing it).
Say we're lucky enough to have a person on the planet right now who is right about the purpose of life - how can we justify not giving that person the greatest opportunity possible to convince others of his correctness? Real religious tolerance isn't a matter of saying "you can believe whatever you want and I'm fine with it as long as it doesn't affect me." That's apathy and condescension. Real religious tolerance is in religious debate (distinct from religious argument).
That's not to say I like it when people voice their opinions much, either, seeing as they're usually uneducated, illogical, and heavily biased. But at least they're being genuine. The intellectual dishonesty it takes to say that the most important thing about religious discussion is mutual respect is astounding. Face it. It isn't marriage counseling, where being right is less important than affirming love. This is debate about the foundation of the universe, and only 1 side (at most) can be right about their doctrine.
So anyway, I want to know how to convince someone to examine his beliefs. How to pull him out of the attitude that religious disagreement is just something to live with, and that anyone who disagrees with his perspective is just being intolerant.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
There is no such thing as religious tolerance. If you legitimately believe in the core aspects of a religion, then you are naturally compelled to try to convert other people to that religion.
That is the brilliant hook behind all religions, though Christianity has mastered it the most. If you are truly and devoutly Christian, then you believe wholly that if other people are not Christian, they will spend eternity in Hell. Accordingly, how can you NOT use all of your effort to try to convert them?
Of course, religion in all forms is nonsense, but expecting people whom are religious to be 'tolerant' of other people's beliefs is unrealistic and unfair to them. As much as I hate to say it, religious folk that 'accept' that some people believe otherwise are complete sellouts. I don't want people to try to convert me, and I feel pity for the fact that they believe contrived nonsense like Christianity, but at least they are firm in their beliefs(no matter how misguided).
You will never be able to get everyone on the same religon unless you have super powers or the ability to manifest recordable witnessed miracles. Even then its highly unlikely.
Of course, religion in all forms is nonsense, but expecting people whom are religious to be 'tolerant' of other people's beliefs is unrealistic and unfair to them.
As much as I hate to say it, religious folk that 'accept' that some people believe otherwise are complete sellouts. I don't want people to try to convert me, and I feel pity for the fact that they believe contrived nonsense like Christianity, but at least they are firm in their beliefs(no matter how misguided).
Bald faced lie.
You are disingenuously arguing that you're giving "misguided fanatical Christians" credit, by accusing "tolerant Christians" of hypocrisy (and thus placing them BELOW the misguided fanatical [but non-hypocritical] Christians you despise).
You don't hate that. You love doing that. You insult both groups of Christians in the same sentence, then claim to be giving the group you insult less, some credit.
Pretty much what I normally expect from you.
-
As for the issue of tolerance, you can be Christian and not badger people. God works on his own timetable, and you don't win anybody's heart or mind when they're not interested in hearing you. I recognize the limits of my abililty to persuade, and that its counterproductive to push your beliefs on somebody else if they don't want to hear you.
You are disingenuously arguing that you're giving "misguided fanatical Christians" credit, by accusing "tolerant Christians" of hypocrisy (and thus placing them BELOW the misguided fanatical [but non-hypocritical] Christians you despise).
You don't hate that. You love doing that. You insult both groups of Christians in the same sentence, then claim to be giving the group you insult less, some credit.
Pretty much what I normally expect from you.
-
As for the issue of tolerance, you can be Christian and not badger people. God works on his own timetable, and you don't win anybody's heart or mind when they're not interested in hearing you. I recognize the limits of my abililty to persuade, and that its counterproductive to push your beliefs on somebody else if they don't want to hear you.
I don't want you to think I'm giving them any credit. I'm not. I feel nothing but disdain for Christianity, and only pity for those people that are gullible enough to believe in it.
What I am saying is that, from an objective and logical perspective, if someone IS Christian, you cannot reasonably expect them to not try to convert you. Even if they are risking your friendship to do so. In their mind, they are trading a relationship for, literally, your eternal soul. Of course they are going to do so. I don't begrudge them that. I just don't associate with people who are actively Christian, for this exact reason. I don't want to be harassed about converting, but it is silly to say 'I know that you believe that my soul is at risk, but please drop it'.
I don't want you to think I'm giving them any credit. I'm not. I feel nothing but disdain for Christianity, and only pity for those people that are gullible enough to believe in it.
You didn't have to repeat that. We know you well enough. You sarcastically phrased it in a way that implied you were giving one group credit, when you were really taking a dump on both.
What I am saying is that, from an objective and logical perspective, if someone IS Christian, you cannot reasonably expect them to not try to convert you.
Why? You are assuming that (1) you are READY to listen and (2) you're dying in an hour.
If you were my friend, I would be quite certain that preaching to you would drive you away, and that you're probably not dying in an hour.
Even if they are risking your friendship to do so.
Its not the issue of risking your friendship. Its the issue of simply driving you away from Christianity and my friendship.
In their mind, they are trading a relationship for, literally, your eternal soul.
No. They are recognizing that its counterproductive to badger an otherwise reasonable, but militantly atheistic guy who gets rude and hostile everytime Christianity comes up in conversation. They pray that your heart will eventually be softened, and they try to lead by example.
But since you're prejudiced towards them anyway, this is a theoretical conversation we're talking about here.
Of course they are going to do so. I don't begrudge them that. I just don't associate with people who are actively Christian, for this exact reason. I don't want to be harassed about converting, but it is silly to say 'I know that you believe that my soul is at risk, but please drop it'.'
What's so silly about "Sorry, but I don't believe, and nothing you can say right now will do anything other than drive me away. Please drop it.
And they will. And they will pray that God has plans for you in the future... but its not like your'e going to die NOW. Maybe you will die tomorrow. But we're all just human individuals, and we are flawed, and we do our best.
Its my duty to make my best effort to spread God's word, by BEST effort is working smarter, not stupidly badgering people when their heart is closed to you.
I believe you MIGHT be going to hell if you don't convert today, and if you die this minute. But based on where you are in your spiritual development right now, it's clearly not be my role today to change that. My words will do nothing but drive you to hate Christians more. And ultimately I don't know what's in your heart... or how well healthy your heart is medically.
Not all opinions are created equal. If someone I knew believed in unicorns, I would meet that belief with ridicule. If someone believes in a talking snake and a genocidal sky-man, I treat that belief with equal disdain.
EDIT: Not that I go out of my way to argue with theists. I just think they are usually otherwise reasonable people who are ignorant sheep when it comes to religion. I mean just look at dcartist above my post. Legitimately smart guy, but it seems that he actually believes people go to hell for not believing in the aforementioned talking snake.
I believe some religions have a good record of genuine tolerance. While i'm no expert on Buddhism, I do recall that Buddhist teachings dictate that actions and behaviors not belief influence the location of rebirth. I believe that these teachings genuinely inspire tolerance amongst it's followers
Religion has caused wars, partial exterminations of races and nationalities, and countless crimes. If everyone keeps spirituality private, none of these things would have happened. Every established religion has tried to convert other people (in an attempt to gain power and to "prove" that it is the one true religion). The problem is that no one wants to be "wrong," so no one will ever concede his or her beliefs.
As the old addage goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." So if someone managed to find the one true religion, there would still be doubters. There will always be contrarians.
Being intollerant is just a sign of massive insecurity.
Religion has caused wars, partial exterminations of races and nationalities, and countless crimes. If everyone keeps spirituality private, none of these things would have happened.
Bold claim. I don't believe it though, so please, say more to convince me.
Every established religion has tried to convert other people (in an attempt to gain power and to "prove" that it is the one true religion). The problem is that no one wants to be "wrong," so no one will ever concede his or her beliefs.
Well, that's not entirely true. It is possible to change people's mind, but it is definitely much more difficult than, "*snap* Mind changed." But my overall point is that there is a difference between improbable and impossible, and confusing the two is not a very good idea.
Being intollerant is just a sign of massive insecurity.
Intolerance could also steam from fear, as in "I'm afraid of what will happen to you if you continue with your current beliefs." It's important to make sure all the factors of religious intolerance are accounted for because answering intolerance is not the same in all cases.
Sorry, I didn't mean to make a thread about theists vs. atheists. The only attitude I wanted to discuss was the one where people use the fact that there's intransigent disagreement over religion to argue that religious debate is valueless, and what to do about it.
I suppose I did say that mutual respect is not particularly important, but I kinda hope no one took that to mean that I meant I was hoping to hear some good insults as each side belittles the other. That was definitely not my goal here.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
That's not to say I like it when people voice their opinions much, either, seeing as they're usually uneducated, illogical, and heavily biased.
You should not think that bias is only something that appears in uneducated people. Also whether a person is biased against a proposition has very little bearing on the truth (or Falsity) of the world view he holds to or any other world view he is discussing.
Face it. It isn't marriage counseling, where being right is less important than affirming love. This is debate about the foundation of the universe, and only 1 side (at most) can be right about their doctrine.
True. Most religions hold to exclusive truth claims though.
Originally Posted by LSZ
Religion has caused wars, partial exterminations of races and nationalities, and countless crimes. If everyone keeps spirituality private, none of these things would have happened.
Bold claim. I don't believe it though, so please, say more to convince me.
I have to agree with Mockingbird here. The more I learn on the topic, the more I think war, violence, slavery, ect, ect are cultural issues. Religion just happens to florish in these kinds of cultures. The case as to whether religion perpetuates these states by stagnating cultural evolution is another topic altogether.
As for the OP's question:
If your friend (or whoever he is) has resolved to be offended with any discussion of religion, I would just avoid talking to him about the topic. In all honestly, you're not likely to change his mind. I would ask that before he dismisses your ideas that he read some of the works from the atheist community on the topic. You could also read some ID nonsense (or whatever particular superstition he subscribes to) to have an idea about why he believes what he believes.
The chances are low he'll agree, but it's at least an attempt to bridge the gap. You can say you tried.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Nonsense; you can't separate religion from culture. It takes divisive dogma to cause most of the violence, war etc. we have seen throughout history. Many times this dogma is from religion.
For example, try to claim that gays would not be persecuted without Christianity. Well, I think that for persecution like this you need a dogma letting you believe that another group is inferior. If Christianity weren't around it would just be some other dogmatic faith system. So religion is inextricably tied with bigotry and the likes. In many cases bigotry would not exist without religion to prop it up. And in other cases strict adherence to fundamentalist dogma is the root cause of the bigotry.
So any way you cut it, religion is the cause of much evil in the world.
Religion has caused wars, partial exterminations of races and nationalities, and countless crimes.
Oh boy are we going to this again. The genocide claim. You would have made a good communist pal regurgitating atheist propaganda like that. Is genocide now the deciding factor in discerning truth because if that is true atheism is the least true of all the world views.
So any way you cut it, religion is the cause of much evil in the world.
Oh yes and communist Russia and China really are the atheist utopias you all where hoping for. If you are wondering I was snorting derisively when I was typing this.
Oh boy are we going to this again. The genocide claim. You would have made a good communist pal regurgitating atheist propaganda like that. Is genocide now the deciding factor in discerning truth because if that is true atheism is the least true of all the world views.
Oh yes and communist Russia and China really are the atheist utopias you all where hoping for. If you are wondering I was snorting derisively when I was typing this.
I believe what the claim was that Religion had caused much of the problems in this world from start to now. Yes we know of Atheists that went on rampages doing things that were considered unethical/immoral/straight up bad.
But I believe that in perspective, comparing the amount of atrocities committed in the name of religion compared to the amount of atrocities committed with no religious motivation whatsoever. The odds are that the former will overshadow the latter.
Really did the religion kill hundred million people? I can give you one book by a few historians that claims thats what the communist did.
I was unaware of that. Maybe you can educate me about these atrocities.
I'm sure you are aware of everything the communist did so I would like to know exactly how that is akin to what religion has done.
This is a rather tedious objection I have to hear every time religion comes up. Again does genocide have anything to do with who Jesus of Nazereth was? What he stood for or what he did because even if we all are just a bunch of mass murderers I cannot see how that influences God existence or Jesus ascension.
This is a rather tedious objection I have to hear every time religion comes up. Again does genocide have anything to do with who Jesus of Nazereth was? What he stood for or what he did because even if we all are just a bunch of mass murderers I cannot see how that influences God existence or Jesus ascension.
You're right, it has no bearing on whether or not the person existed and was who he was said to be, but it does raise the issue that, even if he did exist, if what he preached was bad, we shouldn't follow him.
It's often been said by atheists that if the god of the Bible was shown to exist, for instance, it would be morally correct to stand up against that god and refuse to worship him due to his morally bankrupt behaviour.
Personally, I probably would worship out of fear. My integrity is not worth the stakes that are being raised here, and that's something I don't understand about moderate Christians. If what they say was true really was true, it would be the single most important thing ever. It should guide every action and you should be spending almost every waking hour attempting to understand and follow what is going on. We're talking about the fate of your eternal soul, and yet, they don't consider it a big deal.
This doesn't necessarily apply to all religions. Not all religions teach such huge things and not all consider themselves universal.
Really did the religion kill hundred million people? I can give you one book by a few historians that claims thats what the communist did.
I was unaware of that. Maybe you can educate me about these atrocities.
I'm sure you are aware of everything the communist did so I would like to know exactly how that is akin to what religion has done.
This is a rather tedious objection I have to hear every time religion comes up. Again does genocide have anything to do with who Jesus of Nazereth was? What he stood for or what he did because even if we all are just a bunch of mass murderers I cannot see how that influences God existence or Jesus ascension.
Well is there a scale for measuring said atrocities to those committed in the past? A man with a sword and spear will not kill as much as a man with poison gas and machine guns
@bakgat: Totalitarianism was the cause of all those genocide campaigns. Not a lack of belief in gods.
And on that subject, we don't need to tolerate horrific claims made in the name of God any more than we need to tolerate horrific claims made in the name of Global Communism (or whatever).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Nonsense; you can't separate religion from culture. It takes divisive dogma to cause most of the violence, war etc. we have seen throughout history. Many times this dogma is from religion.
For example, try to claim that gays would not be persecuted without Christianity. Well, I think that for persecution like this you need a dogma letting you believe that another group is inferior. If Christianity weren't around it would just be some other dogmatic faith system. So religion is inextricably tied with bigotry and the likes. In many cases bigotry would not exist without religion to prop it up. And in other cases strict adherence to fundamentalist dogma is the root cause of the bigotry.
So any way you cut it, religion is the cause of much evil in the world.
I felt the same way for a long time. But Dawkins more or less changed my mind. It is a fact that as mammals we instinctively dislike other animals that look different than us (on an instinctive level).
Now don't go getting all riled up over that comment, be sure I don't mean it a way that should upset you, so let me explain. It's not at the front of our mind as a hatefully emotion. It's not even really "dislike" but "less comfortable" than being around people that you are used to. These people typically look like you do for the most part. And I would think it's probably only concerning animals that pose a threat (like other humans).
Our brains evolved but many of our base instincts are still quite strong. I think this is why racism and biography exist. We don't all behave like this because our intelligence allows us morals and rational that other animals don't necessarily have.
Anyway, it goes to the point that at one time religion WAS the culture of people. I think now religion rides on the coat tales of cultural evolution. Problems begin when the cultural norms change, and the religion doesn't. If you could think of religion as a sentient being, then it would have a very strong will to live, but one of it's core principles is to never change. I believe this is why religions die, or dwindle to insignificant numbers (does this remind you of anything?).
I suppose I could agree that some wars have been fought in this day and age (or the recent past, <500 years) because of religion's tendency to be warlike, and it's unwillingness to change to fit the times (combined with how widespread it is). Or...maybe war is (independent of religion) still too widely accepted and our civilization hasn't had enough time to evolve past it. Perhaps it's a little of both. Opinions wanted...
Originally Posted by bakgat
Oh boy are we going to this again. The genocide claim. You would have made a good communist pal regurgitating atheist propaganda like that. Is genocide now the deciding factor in discerning truth because if that is true atheism is the least true of all the world views.
Oh yes and communist Russia and China really are the atheist utopias you all where hoping for. If you are wondering I was snorting derisively when I was typing this.
Sigh. OK, I'll explain this again. Communist societies are not secular societies. They are not communists because they mandate atheism, it's the other way around. Communism is a totalitarian form of dictatorship that requires it's citizens to be atheists. I surely hope you can see the difference. It's kind of like theocracies dictating that you must be one religion or another or face persecution.
Stalin wasn't trying to just eliminate the idea of God, he wanted to BE God to his nation. He usurped the role of God. He wanted to be viewed with reverence. Many people in Russia thought, or wished, that Lenin had supernatural powers. The Atheist museum had stained glass windows and felt like a church. Stalin didn't try to kill religion, he tried to kill his competition. Perhaps this is why communism and Theocracies operate in nearly the SAME WAY.
I see virtually no difference between the way Russian communists acted toward non-Russians than the way enemy theocracies act toward each other. War, genocide, and the complete subjugation of the people.
There are still large areas of Russia that are non-religious. I think that's because they got to see the face God, and how he would act as described in the bible (obviously I don't mean Stalin acted with the same particulars as God did in the OT, but in general as a supreme and unforgiving dictator).
Do you really think I'm obligated to identify with communism because I'm an atheist? You do realize most of Russia was religious before communism right? I'd be very interested to see how defectors from North Korea take the idea of a all powerful God that can smite you down at a whim.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
@bakgat: Totalitarianism was the cause of all those genocide campaigns. Not a lack of belief in gods.
I'm willing to accept this statement. The problem is, that most people on your side are not willing to accept its natural corollary: in the case of "religiously" inspired wars -- the vast majority of those cases totalitarianism was the cause of those wars as well.
I think the difference between the two is that both use totalitarianism as as an ends, but one uses religion as a justification. Religion, like excessive nationalism (think of the communist 'state'), gives the people something above themselves to defer their judgement to and commit these atrocities in its name (rather than take the blame/guilt onto themselves)
I'm willing to accept this statement. The problem is, that most people on your side are not willing to accept its natural corollary: in the case of "religiously" inspired wars -- the vast majority of those cases totalitarianism was the cause of those wars as well.
I don't necessarily see religion and totalitarianism as separate. Religion can be quite a totalitarian ideology. And in any case the root of the problem is top-down dogma that tolerates no criticism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Say we're lucky enough to have a person on the planet right now who is right about the purpose of life - how can we justify not giving that person the greatest opportunity possible to convince others of his correctness? Real religious tolerance isn't a matter of saying "you can believe whatever you want and I'm fine with it as long as it doesn't affect me." That's apathy and condescension. Real religious tolerance is in religious debate (distinct from religious argument).
That's not to say I like it when people voice their opinions much, either, seeing as they're usually uneducated, illogical, and heavily biased. But at least they're being genuine. The intellectual dishonesty it takes to say that the most important thing about religious discussion is mutual respect is astounding. Face it. It isn't marriage counseling, where being right is less important than affirming love. This is debate about the foundation of the universe, and only 1 side (at most) can be right about their doctrine.
So anyway, I want to know how to convince someone to examine his beliefs. How to pull him out of the attitude that religious disagreement is just something to live with, and that anyone who disagrees with his perspective is just being intolerant.
That is the brilliant hook behind all religions, though Christianity has mastered it the most. If you are truly and devoutly Christian, then you believe wholly that if other people are not Christian, they will spend eternity in Hell. Accordingly, how can you NOT use all of your effort to try to convert them?
Of course, religion in all forms is nonsense, but expecting people whom are religious to be 'tolerant' of other people's beliefs is unrealistic and unfair to them. As much as I hate to say it, religious folk that 'accept' that some people believe otherwise are complete sellouts. I don't want people to try to convert me, and I feel pity for the fact that they believe contrived nonsense like Christianity, but at least they are firm in their beliefs(no matter how misguided).
You are disingenuously arguing that you're giving "misguided fanatical Christians" credit, by accusing "tolerant Christians" of hypocrisy (and thus placing them BELOW the misguided fanatical [but non-hypocritical] Christians you despise).
You don't hate that. You love doing that. You insult both groups of Christians in the same sentence, then claim to be giving the group you insult less, some credit.
Pretty much what I normally expect from you.
-
As for the issue of tolerance, you can be Christian and not badger people. God works on his own timetable, and you don't win anybody's heart or mind when they're not interested in hearing you. I recognize the limits of my abililty to persuade, and that its counterproductive to push your beliefs on somebody else if they don't want to hear you.
I don't want you to think I'm giving them any credit. I'm not. I feel nothing but disdain for Christianity, and only pity for those people that are gullible enough to believe in it.
What I am saying is that, from an objective and logical perspective, if someone IS Christian, you cannot reasonably expect them to not try to convert you. Even if they are risking your friendship to do so. In their mind, they are trading a relationship for, literally, your eternal soul. Of course they are going to do so. I don't begrudge them that. I just don't associate with people who are actively Christian, for this exact reason. I don't want to be harassed about converting, but it is silly to say 'I know that you believe that my soul is at risk, but please drop it'.
Why? You are assuming that (1) you are READY to listen and (2) you're dying in an hour.
If you were my friend, I would be quite certain that preaching to you would drive you away, and that you're probably not dying in an hour.
Its not the issue of risking your friendship. Its the issue of simply driving you away from Christianity and my friendship.
No. They are recognizing that its counterproductive to badger an otherwise reasonable, but militantly atheistic guy who gets rude and hostile everytime Christianity comes up in conversation. They pray that your heart will eventually be softened, and they try to lead by example.
But since you're prejudiced towards them anyway, this is a theoretical conversation we're talking about here.
What's so silly about "Sorry, but I don't believe, and nothing you can say right now will do anything other than drive me away. Please drop it.
And they will. And they will pray that God has plans for you in the future... but its not like your'e going to die NOW. Maybe you will die tomorrow. But we're all just human individuals, and we are flawed, and we do our best.
Its my duty to make my best effort to spread God's word, by BEST effort is working smarter, not stupidly badgering people when their heart is closed to you.
I believe you MIGHT be going to hell if you don't convert today, and if you die this minute. But based on where you are in your spiritual development right now, it's clearly not be my role today to change that. My words will do nothing but drive you to hate Christians more. And ultimately I don't know what's in your heart... or how well healthy your heart is medically.
EDIT: Not that I go out of my way to argue with theists. I just think they are usually otherwise reasonable people who are ignorant sheep when it comes to religion. I mean just look at dcartist above my post. Legitimately smart guy, but it seems that he actually believes people go to hell for not believing in the aforementioned talking snake.
It just seems so.... anachronistic.
As the old addage goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." So if someone managed to find the one true religion, there would still be doubters. There will always be contrarians.
Being intollerant is just a sign of massive insecurity.
Well, that's not entirely true. It is possible to change people's mind, but it is definitely much more difficult than, "*snap* Mind changed." But my overall point is that there is a difference between improbable and impossible, and confusing the two is not a very good idea.
Intolerance could also steam from fear, as in "I'm afraid of what will happen to you if you continue with your current beliefs." It's important to make sure all the factors of religious intolerance are accounted for because answering intolerance is not the same in all cases.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I suppose I did say that mutual respect is not particularly important, but I kinda hope no one took that to mean that I meant I was hoping to hear some good insults as each side belittles the other. That was definitely not my goal here.
You should not think that bias is only something that appears in uneducated people. Also whether a person is biased against a proposition has very little bearing on the truth (or Falsity) of the world view he holds to or any other world view he is discussing.
True. Most religions hold to exclusive truth claims though.
I have to agree with Mockingbird here. The more I learn on the topic, the more I think war, violence, slavery, ect, ect are cultural issues. Religion just happens to florish in these kinds of cultures. The case as to whether religion perpetuates these states by stagnating cultural evolution is another topic altogether.
As for the OP's question:
If your friend (or whoever he is) has resolved to be offended with any discussion of religion, I would just avoid talking to him about the topic. In all honestly, you're not likely to change his mind. I would ask that before he dismisses your ideas that he read some of the works from the atheist community on the topic. You could also read some ID nonsense (or whatever particular superstition he subscribes to) to have an idea about why he believes what he believes.
The chances are low he'll agree, but it's at least an attempt to bridge the gap. You can say you tried.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
For example, try to claim that gays would not be persecuted without Christianity. Well, I think that for persecution like this you need a dogma letting you believe that another group is inferior. If Christianity weren't around it would just be some other dogmatic faith system. So religion is inextricably tied with bigotry and the likes. In many cases bigotry would not exist without religion to prop it up. And in other cases strict adherence to fundamentalist dogma is the root cause of the bigotry.
So any way you cut it, religion is the cause of much evil in the world.
You could start by Googling/Wikipedia the Crusades
Oh boy are we going to this again. The genocide claim. You would have made a good communist pal regurgitating atheist propaganda like that. Is genocide now the deciding factor in discerning truth because if that is true atheism is the least true of all the world views.
Oh yes and communist Russia and China really are the atheist utopias you all where hoping for. If you are wondering I was snorting derisively when I was typing this.
I believe what the claim was that Religion had caused much of the problems in this world from start to now. Yes we know of Atheists that went on rampages doing things that were considered unethical/immoral/straight up bad.
But I believe that in perspective, comparing the amount of atrocities committed in the name of religion compared to the amount of atrocities committed with no religious motivation whatsoever. The odds are that the former will overshadow the latter.
I was unaware of that. Maybe you can educate me about these atrocities.
I'm sure you are aware of everything the communist did so I would like to know exactly how that is akin to what religion has done.
This is a rather tedious objection I have to hear every time religion comes up. Again does genocide have anything to do with who Jesus of Nazereth was? What he stood for or what he did because even if we all are just a bunch of mass murderers I cannot see how that influences God existence or Jesus ascension.
It's often been said by atheists that if the god of the Bible was shown to exist, for instance, it would be morally correct to stand up against that god and refuse to worship him due to his morally bankrupt behaviour.
Personally, I probably would worship out of fear. My integrity is not worth the stakes that are being raised here, and that's something I don't understand about moderate Christians. If what they say was true really was true, it would be the single most important thing ever. It should guide every action and you should be spending almost every waking hour attempting to understand and follow what is going on. We're talking about the fate of your eternal soul, and yet, they don't consider it a big deal.
This doesn't necessarily apply to all religions. Not all religions teach such huge things and not all consider themselves universal.
Well is there a scale for measuring said atrocities to those committed in the past? A man with a sword and spear will not kill as much as a man with poison gas and machine guns
And on that subject, we don't need to tolerate horrific claims made in the name of God any more than we need to tolerate horrific claims made in the name of Global Communism (or whatever).
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I felt the same way for a long time. But Dawkins more or less changed my mind. It is a fact that as mammals we instinctively dislike other animals that look different than us (on an instinctive level).
Now don't go getting all riled up over that comment, be sure I don't mean it a way that should upset you, so let me explain. It's not at the front of our mind as a hatefully emotion. It's not even really "dislike" but "less comfortable" than being around people that you are used to. These people typically look like you do for the most part. And I would think it's probably only concerning animals that pose a threat (like other humans).
Our brains evolved but many of our base instincts are still quite strong. I think this is why racism and biography exist. We don't all behave like this because our intelligence allows us morals and rational that other animals don't necessarily have.
Anyway, it goes to the point that at one time religion WAS the culture of people. I think now religion rides on the coat tales of cultural evolution. Problems begin when the cultural norms change, and the religion doesn't. If you could think of religion as a sentient being, then it would have a very strong will to live, but one of it's core principles is to never change. I believe this is why religions die, or dwindle to insignificant numbers (does this remind you of anything?).
I suppose I could agree that some wars have been fought in this day and age (or the recent past, <500 years) because of religion's tendency to be warlike, and it's unwillingness to change to fit the times (combined with how widespread it is). Or...maybe war is (independent of religion) still too widely accepted and our civilization hasn't had enough time to evolve past it. Perhaps it's a little of both. Opinions wanted...
Sigh. OK, I'll explain this again. Communist societies are not secular societies. They are not communists because they mandate atheism, it's the other way around. Communism is a totalitarian form of dictatorship that requires it's citizens to be atheists. I surely hope you can see the difference. It's kind of like theocracies dictating that you must be one religion or another or face persecution.
Stalin wasn't trying to just eliminate the idea of God, he wanted to BE God to his nation. He usurped the role of God. He wanted to be viewed with reverence. Many people in Russia thought, or wished, that Lenin had supernatural powers. The Atheist museum had stained glass windows and felt like a church. Stalin didn't try to kill religion, he tried to kill his competition. Perhaps this is why communism and Theocracies operate in nearly the SAME WAY.
I see virtually no difference between the way Russian communists acted toward non-Russians than the way enemy theocracies act toward each other. War, genocide, and the complete subjugation of the people.
There are still large areas of Russia that are non-religious. I think that's because they got to see the face God, and how he would act as described in the bible (obviously I don't mean Stalin acted with the same particulars as God did in the OT, but in general as a supreme and unforgiving dictator).
Do you really think I'm obligated to identify with communism because I'm an atheist? You do realize most of Russia was religious before communism right? I'd be very interested to see how defectors from North Korea take the idea of a all powerful God that can smite you down at a whim.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I'm willing to accept this statement. The problem is, that most people on your side are not willing to accept its natural corollary: in the case of "religiously" inspired wars -- the vast majority of those cases totalitarianism was the cause of those wars as well.
I don't necessarily see religion and totalitarianism as separate. Religion can be quite a totalitarian ideology. And in any case the root of the problem is top-down dogma that tolerates no criticism.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.