Ya know people on this board keep saying that, yet I have yet to think of a single instance in which my belief was harmful to me or anyone else.

Just as you say natural.

Cpt , what is your belief?

 Yeah the article is a mess. I'm most always speaking to all choirs. Thomas Jefferson was no moderate. He was a realist.

Warning, ME GOD smokes and BEWARE of BBQ's and camp fires.

Atheistic buddha Jesus said go home and pray alone you public blind hypocrites. Atheist Buddha Jesus meditated, they did not pray. Pauline Jesus followers, idol worshipers pray. I wish the paulines would stay on their knees at home until they figure out they are god, and this is heaven and hell NOW.

Separation of church and state is law. Beliefs are free .... You are both right. 

In the extremes, refused medical treatment based on religious belief can and does lead to death, for example.

Attitudes to homosexuals and women based on religious doctrine certainly is harmful.

Even in your own case, you are not necessarily in a position to know whether your ideas have encouraged others to make irrational decisions which may have been caused them unnecessary difficulties, or even if you yourself may have had an improved life experience if you had adopted a more rational world view.

I can guarantee you that my personal belief in god has done more good for me and the people around me than bad.  I agree with you that certain religious sects have caused a lot of harm due to their irrational beliefs, but to be a truly rational atheist you need to understand that there are still positive sides to spirituality and/or theism.

Really now? How could it possibly caused somebody difficulties or how can I possible improve if I was atheist?

People have expressed thanks to people like Richard Dawkins and RRS have helped them 'de-convert', but obviously they wouldn't have anticipated they would feel like that before they changed their beiiefs, otherwise they would have changed their views without needing help.

Your particular belief set may well be relatively innocuous, but almost by definition you will not see how your beliefs may be a problem for you in any way.

The thing is, Pineapple, there's objective reality.  Some beliefs line up with them.  Others don't.  In the case of patently obvious falsehood, it's easy to run with the label of delusional.  If you believed that you were Elvis, it wouldn't be hard to prove you wrong.  If you continued to believe in spite of evidence that you're not Elvis, everyone would agree that you're delusional.

With something like god, it's not as obvious because the objective reality in question is an unknown.  That is, you believe in something for which there is no direct evidence, no indirect evidence, and only speculative vagueries with regard to any attempt at a definition.

It's possible that your belief doesn't have a major impact on your life, as Bob said.  However, there's a really big way in which it does affect you, and by extension, everyone else who values your opinion or observes your life.  You have set a precedent that it's correct and defensible to accept as true that for which there is no evidence, and furthermore, to defend the right of others to do the same thing.

As I've said many times before, by not refuting the validity of believing things despite a total lack of evidence, you are validating anyone and everyone's God beliefs.  The fact that your god is innocuous hardly matters.  Most gods are not nearly so harmless, and you validate others beliefs, even with your fuzzy logic information deity.

I validate the fundementals?

Let's take a look at Bobby's examples:

The whole "God hates fags" movement is based on the premises that you choose to be homosexual. This is most clearly false, as there is massive evidence to the contrary.

Same with them thinking women are inferior, there is contrary evidence to suggest so.

So you see, you would have to show how I operate despite evidence to the contrary in order to make that argument.

The "God Hates fags" is NOT based only on the idea that homosexuality is a choice. That is silly because there are many other life-styles that  really are a matter of choice and don't attract such attacks. It is based on a disgust of homosexuality, massively reinforced by Leviticus, which in turn was inspired by an ancient culture which shared and approved of that same attitude. It is because it is not based on evidence in the first place that the haters are not going to be swayed by evidence about choice.  Which actually is consistent with my point, if you hold to a belief on irrational grounds, you unlikely to accept counter-evidence.

You are right that we would have to show you evidence that your particular belief was harmful. That is still consistent with my point that you yourself would be less likely to notice such evidence, which is why you would need us to point it out to you.

That is a major reason why RRS opposes beliefs held with little or rational argument or evidence - it encourages people to ignore or deny evidence in other areas as well. It allows them to call for legislation despite evidence that the effects are likely to be negative.

So your response in no way invalidates my argument

You stll don;t get it, Cpt, it is called a sin primarily because it disgusts them, and of course it is assumed to be a choice. But if there was not that primary reaction of disgust, there would be no reason to call it a sin.

Making choices is not considered a sin!

Making what is considered a very bad/harmful choice is what makes it a sin. It is the irrationality of the idea that homosexuality is intrinsically a bad thing that is the problem I am trying to point out.

Ok maybe I should have made it clear that an act of choice in itself is not a sin. it is making a choice to do something considered against the will of God, or to not believe in him (as they see it), that makes it a sin.

But NOT the ONLY reason it is considered a sin.

That is very unlikely, on the evidence. Creationists cling to their beliefs in the face of massive counter evidence, so we see strong irrational beliefs causing people to ignore evidence all the time.

Please, never smoke, it is killing and robbing me ...  Nicotine addiction is not nice. I am an expert smoker fool.

And see a dentist every birthday, a real present to yourself ... keep your natural teeth ...

Which was...?? Could you clarify? Just what was your objection to my original argument?

My point is that people who hold beliefs not based on evidence, or indeed contrary to evidence, are unlikely to be open to evidence not just about the substance of that belief but about any other problems associated with that belief, such as it having potentially harmful effects on society. You seem to disagree, and kept suggesting that, for example, if people who believed homosexuality was bad, which is an irrational belief, with no evidence to support it, also believe it is  'sin' because they believe people 'choose' to be be homosexuality, would not say that if they knew it wasn't a choice. But sinc

Since it is extremely unlikely that they could be convinced of this, such a comment is, at best, academic, and beside the point, at least irrelevant to my point.

I used Creationism as one of the extreme but not uncommon examples of how people with irrational beliefs are unlikely to be swayed by evidence which in any way threatens their world-view, and this includes evidence that their belief itself, and the actions affected by that belief, may have negative impacts on anyone.

We are a bit alike wild Cpt in that we don't seem to understand each others g-o-d philosophy. Yeah yeah, a lot of folks don't understand "me god as you", as per my clumsy atheist preaching satire. Bad me.

 I think I understand cool Eloise's pane-theism pretty well. I don't call my self a pantheist because to much funny new age immaterial consciousness mumbo jumbo is attached to the label. Other wise I'm pretty okay with it, as it's basically "sexed up atheism", as Dawkins says.

 So Cpt, can you in a couple sentences summarize your g-o-d philosophy?

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/othergods.htm

There are Seven Major World Views.

1. Atheism – There is no God
2. Deism – God exists but is detached from the Universe.
3. Pantheism – All is God
4. Panetheism – God is developing along with the Universe.
5. Finite Godism – God exists but is limited and finite
6. Polytheism – There are many finite gods.
7. Theism – Classical Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

 Umm, 1 and 2 both describe me. All is god, and I am an Anti-theist, a materialist

    Note: the article has interesting definitions, but falls on it's ass, in its summation.

Yes yes god wise Eloise, as I noted at the end of my post. All "separatist religious" g-o-d  thinking is really messed up. Science studies the g-o-d parts of the "eternal oneness" the best way. Science is like meditation, and does not pray.

  The point is "Word, Label" definitions are linguistically messy, as I say "immaterial is a broken concept", as science better describes as matter/antimatter, as to further say consciousness is material.

 Umm, "Gnosis" is realized, and not learned, only the path can be suggested.

    LOL great sharing teacher Eloise, my "down under" wise caring friend.   

LOL Cpt ... you are a blast. Stay honest. Do kick me when I fuck up, as I often do.

Yeah Hamby, I say Cpt and Eloise, as different they are individually, are atheists, of linguistic misunderstandings. For this reason I don't go out publicly wearing an atheist t-shirt, as the label means different things to people. Instead I would wear an "ALL IS ONE, ALL IS GOD" t-shirt.

   A "Thermodynamics is GOD" , t-shirt would also not be generally understood.

There's a problem here.  If you do genuinely believe in God, then you believe in something.  You must have some concept of god, or you couldn't recognize it as a concept.  No matter how hazy, you do have boundaries within which your concept of god exists.

The question is, do you believe in something that doesn't make sense, , or do you think there is a coherent epistemology and you don't know what it is?

If it's the former, then we have all the justification we need for lumping you in with Christians because your belief is just as irrational as theirs, regardless of the fact that your deity isn't as mean.  If it's the latter, then you're putting the cart before the horse.  Good critical thought requires that we refrain from belief until we have evidence.  The only logical position with regard to something that you think may be coherent is cautious optimism that it might exist.

  We are all "g AWE d" ....      Why invent, imagine, assume a separate Master or immaterial anything? Heck, science has it best covered as thermodynamics and matter/antimatter etc .... no magic exists.

So what, religion is my wittle teddy bear? I've noticed most of your responses to me lately have been saying that I was too emotional about this or that.

Okay then bring back Lucy's cardboard box again, why don't you think I can't get over the thought of something? Why do you think I respond with emotion so much? How would I get over it?

I know you have some kind of anyalisis cooked up in your noodle and want to dominate me again.

Woah, there, cowgirl!  You must be thinking of somebody else.  If you want to be dominated, that's your deal, and I have no issue with it.  I just say what I see.  You can do with it what you want.

Yeah... because your posts have contained no logical arguments, and... um... let's see... you admitted that one was totally emotional, and then admitted that your next response was just emotional so you didn't post it... and... let's see...

Because that's where all the evidence points.

Emotions are nature's way of getting us to do things that we wouldn't ordinarily do if we used only reason.  I know virtually nothing about your upbringing other than what you've told me in confidence, and I'm not going to address that here because I said I wouldn't.  Outside of that, I have nothing on which to base a guess as to why you are having such a hard time contemplating a universe without a god.

If you're willing to play along, drop a nickel in the slot and tell me, in as much detail as you can, what a universe without any god would look like.  Maybe if you figure out what's so scary about a godless universe, you'll figure out why you desperately want there to be a god.

  g - AWE - d  ,  rules , go science , zero magic.

...Is that all this is about, Cap'n?

If you prefer visual media, please: watch Carl Sagan's 13-part series, 'Cosmos'. It's old, but it still inspires as much awe today as it did while Carl was among us.

If you prefer reading material, see if your library carries copies of 'Pale Blue Dot', 'Dragons of Eden' and/or 'The Demon-Haunted World'. Sagan's work remains among the most well-written and imaginative among popularizers of science.

Our universe is far less bland with no magic that any of the ones concieved for containing it.

me too , go Sagan , we are god ....