Hello
Offline Ok so I'm new here haveing discovered this site by chance after hearing Joe Rogan ,of all people, referance kirk camerons stupidity. Then stumbling on the Nightline debate on youtube.
However I'm not new to atheism haveing relized for sevrail years the sheer impropablity of the bible. After coming across the nightline debate I began searching for more such debates and videos and found I enjoyed them immensly. Especially the debates involving the so called four hoursemen. Having spent the greater part of the last sevrail days watching such videos I've decided it would behoove me to further explore and lay greater foundation to my belieaf.
My question to you is does believeing that theism is a irrational belieaf that actually causes harm to the world. Am I not obligated to be intolernt of such stupidity much like the so called new athiests. Or would I be better off simply following my current habit of keeping my thoughts to myself as long as not first approached by a relgious person. The biggest factor for me is that it seems apparant that Thiesm by it's very existance spreads close mindedness, intolerance, hate, and violence. If i believe this I'm I not obligated as a citzen of the world to fight aganist it? Even if I see no chance of actual victory. If so how?
I of course realize that Tolerance is a virtue hearlded by many including a large number of athiest who simply want to be left alone. However believeing the way I do it would seem tolerance is actual a weak if not immoral act. Thoughts.
P.S. I didn't know the best forum in which to post this so being my first ever post I figured introductions would work. AS a way of doing that I suppose of genrail info would be approate. I'm 27 and about to be a JR at Western Michigan I intend to get my B.A in history in then pursue a Masters in Medievil Studies, and proable a P.H.D possiable in historical anthropology. I realize I'm a horriable speller and my grammer is not much better so please have some patienace with me I'm working on it.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
- Login to post comments
I don't think theism, by itself, causes more harm than any other wrong belief, but I don't really know.
Personally, I am not as opposed to theism as I am to several other things i.e. I don't think theism is the main culprit. Theism is just the belief in god(s). What bothers me is not so much what people believe, but the way they believe it. People should believe claims because they've concluded that those claims are true beyond a reasonable doubt; the entire definition of believing something is that you hold that thing to be true. So, people should believe things based on reason and evidence, science, because these tools are what can increase the probability of a claim being true. As a result, I am most opposed to things like religion, faith, and fundamentalism.
Religions want to constantly inject into the population the meme that speaking against religion is bad bad bad, unacceptable, sometimes even intolerant. But, expressing your opinion does not automatically make you intolerant. It does, however, make you "unapologetic." This is a much better term. Why should the religious get to paint us as homosexual, communist, puppy-torturing demons while we have to say "I'm sorry" after every polite rebuttal? We have nothing to apologize for; there is nothing wrong with being atheist. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should swear at them, frothing at the mouth all the time. It just means that we will not attempt pull any punches in expressing our opinions. We will not apologize for being atheists. Thus, we'll be "unapologetic."
Case in point, "new atheism" is essentially a misnomer. As far as I can tell, atheists don't believe anything different than what they believed before, and none of the popular new atheists, like Dawkins, Harris, etc., are particularly radical. There aren't that many more atheists than there were before either. The only difference is that rational people are becoming progressively more concerned and conscious about the potential that religion holds for impeding the progress of our civilization, and they are less afraid to speak out.
Welcome to the Rational Response Squad.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I follow the unapologetic atheism approach. I've found it very useful, and it doesn't compromise my integrity.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I'm pretty much in the same boat, been an atheist for quite a long time. But I don't know any other atheists, and I just stumbled across some stuff and finally took an interest.
As far as being an active atheist or just getting by, play it how you want too. I am not particularly active untill someone crosses me, especially those who cross me on my own doorstep. I have a nice little evolve symbol eating a jesus carp on the back of my car, thats about as far as I'm willing to go in this part of the country. Most of these hicks probably think it just has something to do with fishing or some such lol. But I feel like this little symbol helps people realize, we are here.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
It depends on what you mean by "intolerant".
I don't think if one is going to be intellectually introspective one can tolerate naked assertions.
HOWEVER, there are 6 billion humans and people will always make absurd claims. We cant lose our humanity for each other because others do or say things we dont like or find absurd. We still are the same species with the same emotions and capable of the same range of actions, both good and bad.
In another thread I wrote a poem and in it said "fuck your god"
It is certainly "offensive" to those who hold a deity belief to be true.
But in the context I am using it, it is not saying I hate believers, but merely the concept, the claim, that they make. In that sense I do not tolerate naked assertions. If you say something I find to be absurd, I will not sugar coat my assessment of your claim.
We can and always should separate the person from the issue the person brings up. A person can be kind and nice and decent and still on a given subject, be full of shit. You can like a person and not like everything they say.
You don't have to confront everyone on god claims in every situation, nor should you. Funerals and weddings come to mind. But if someone mentions god to you, and you say you don't believe, and they engage you further , then simply stipulate that you are not attacking them, but merely responding to their assertion.
Some people will walk away, some wont. You will find plenty of believers that dont take it personally, and you will find insecure babies who cry when you pick on daddy.
But as I said, in all this, both the atheist and believer are still the same species and for our species to have less violent conflict, it should be about never say this, or never say that. It should be about that no matter what is said, at the end of the day, both the believer and atheist would want aid given to them in the case of medical need or car accident. And we both want food, shelter, love, family and friends.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Brian said "fuck your god" and this song Immediately comes to mind.
And it's funny so many christians like this song, heh.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
It depends on what you mean by "intolerant".
I don't think if one is going to be intellectually introspective one can tolerate naked assertions.
HOWEVER, there are 6 billion humans and people will always make absurd claims. We cant lose our humanity for each other because others do or say things we dont like or find absurd. We still are the same species with the same emotions and capable of the same range of actions, both good and bad.
In another thread I wrote a poem and in it said "fuck your god"
It is certainly "offensive" to those who hold a deity belief to be true.
But in the context I am using it, it is not saying I hate believers, but merely the concept, the claim, that they make. In that sense I do not tolerate naked assertions. If you say something I find to be absurd, I will not sugar coat my assessment of your claim.
We can and always should separate the person from the issue the person brings up. A person can be kind and nice and decent and still on a given subject, be full of shit. You can like a person and not like everything they say.
You don't have to confront everyone on god claims in every situation, nor should you. Funerals and weddings come to mind. But if someone mentions god to you, and you say you don't believe, and they engage you further , then simply stipulate that you are not attacking them, but merely responding to their assertion.
Some people will walk away, some wont. You will find plenty of believers that dont take it personally, and you will find insecure babies who cry when you pick on daddy.
But as I said, in all this, both the atheist and believer are still the same species and for our species to have less violent conflict, it should be about never say this, or never say that. It should be about that no matter what is said, at the end of the day, both the believer and atheist would want aid given to them in the case of medical need or car accident. And we both want food, shelter, love, family and friends.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Welcome.... Its not so much that you would be intolerant, rather how you respond to typical theistic intolerance...
So my suggestion is to Read. ....Read Dawking, Harris, Hitchens...read the Old 7 new testaments, and as much of the Koran as you can stomach... also read some of the extremely smart, talented, rational things that people here post... eventually you will gather an arsenal of Rational responses to small mindedness and Bigotry when it is presented to you as Morality... and a confidence to cutt any of these self-righteous, indignatious cock sockets down to size when they hope to enact their self indulgent myopia
www.RichWoodsBlog.com