A parent can teach their child that dogs fly if they wish. I did not teach my children such a thing, and if I encounter children who believe dogs fly I will likely speak to them about why it is a ridiculous belief to hold and discourage them from holding such beliefs.

Even more importantly, when I encounter people who hold religious beliefs I will discourage them from holding such a ridiculous belief as any belief system that teaches that there is a force which can do no wrong, and which must be obeyed at the risk of erternal damnation or eternal bliss, holds unparralleled potential to cause harm.

Why would I care to be snarky?

No, religious faith and trust are completely separate. Trust must be earned. Religious faith has no such criteria. No one would trust a doctor if we didn't have verifiable evidence that doctors, the vast majority of the time, help us. Having religious faith requires nothing of the sort.

They are all completely rational. We know they exist. They are well evidenced.

Truth and honesty must exist as to say no truth exists leaves us with a self refuting premise that 'all staements are false'.

A similar problem arises with trying to refute the existence of honesty. Love is an evolutionary tool that aids in forming strong family and societal units and thus increasing the chance of successfully rearing offspring.

A nuclear weapon doesn't harm me at all either. It is not about what harms others and does not harm others, but what has the potential to harm others while not providing any unique benefit to the society at large.

I know of nothing religion accomplishes that can not be accomplished without religion. Why support, or even condone, the existence of an inherently dangerous ideology that offers no unique societal benefit in return?

Nothing is harmful in and of itself. Again, it is the potential to do harm that is the problem with theistic belief.

Its awesome potential to do harm.

But they don't believe in something. That's the point. They don't believe in atheism as that is impossible. You can't believe in the lack of a belief. if we can convince people to be rational and stop indoctrinating their children into theistic belief systems then you are not indoctrinating anyone into atheism and turning them into an unthinking drone, you are simply removing a useless (utterly incoherent) belief from existence.

This is all aside from the fact that this is a hypothetical you have set up in which people's religion doesn't affect the society. Religions are spread because followers are ordered to recruit by their doctrine.

Name a religion that doesn't try and actively make its existence known so as to attract new recruits and then you will have a religion that only affects the believer. You will also have a religion of one.

The Patrician wrote:

A parent can teach their child that dogs fly if they wish. I did not teach my children such a thing, and if I encounter children who believe dogs fly I will likely speak to them about why it is a ridiculous belief to hold and discourage them from holding such beliefs.

I thought we were done with the facetious analogies?

Quote:

Even more importantly, when I encounter people who hold religious beliefs I will discourage them from holding such a ridiculous belief as any belief system that teaches that there is a force which can do no wrong, and which must be obeyed at the risk of erternal damnation or eternal bliss, holds unparralleled potential to cause harm.

I bet that makes you popular at parties.  Seriously though, why do that?  It's none of your concern if they believe in God or not provided they're not strapping themselves into semtex jackets or voting for adulterers to get the death penalty. 

Quote:

Why would I care to be snarky?

Dude:  Let. It. Go.

Quote:

No, religious faith and trust are completely separate. Trust must be earned. Religious faith has no such criteria. No one would trust a doctor if we didn't have verifiable evidence that doctors, the vast majority of the time, help us. Having religious faith requires nothing of the sort.

I would dispute that.  If you're basing the fate of your immortal soul on something then you're going to have to have a lot of trust in it, aren't you?  It may be misplaced, but it's still there.

Quote:

They are all completely rational. We know they exist. They are well evidenced.

Really?  Show me where love is rational.  Show me where I can find tangible proof of love.  Oh sure, I can look at a couple walking hand in hand down a street and think "Gee, they're in love!" but what is it?  Pheromones?  Neurological transmissions? Faith in each other?

Ah, faith.  It comes down to that again.

Love is an emotion.  Here's a good read on Love:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love/

Quote:

Truth and honesty must exist as to say no truth exists leaves us with a self refuting premise that 'all staements are false'.

A similar problem arises with trying to refute the existence of honesty. Love is an evolutionary tool that aids in forming strong family and societal units and thus increasing the chance of successfully rearing offspring.

I would argue that love is an evolutionary tool.  The counter argument is that if a man impregnates as many women as he can he has a better chance of his genes surviving.  I appreciate the point about secure family units meaning that a reduced number of offspring may have a better chance of survivial though.

As for truth - which statement is true:

The statement below is false

The statemet above is true

Truth exists both as an absolute and as a subjective concept.  As for honesty, is it rational to tell someone something that prevents you from having a competitive advantage over them?  What is the rational benefit of this altruism, specifically with reference to the survival of the fitest?

Ok, let's not get Darwinian about this but you see the point?  Emotions and abstract concepts like love, truth and honesty require a lot of faith too.

Quote:

A nuclear weapon doesn't harm me at all either. It is not about what harms others and does not harm others, but what has the potential to harm others while not providing any unique benefit to the society at large.

Nuclear energy benefits society.  Religious faith - despite all the horrors it has been responsible for - has also benefited society.

Quote:

I know of nothing religion accomplishes that can not be accomplished without religion. Why support, or even condone, the existence of an inherently dangerous ideology that offers no unique societal benefit in return?

Because life isn't about stripping away what isn't inherently valuable. In addition I presume you also feel that we shouldn't have freedom of speech.  After all, it's inherently dangerous and hardly necessary for society.

OK, that was an awful strawman but it illustrates the point.

Quote:

Nothing is harmful in and of itself. Again, it is the potential to do harm that is the problem with theistic belief.

Everything has the potential to do harm.  Should we also get rid of government, the military, the police, scientific experimentation, etc?

Quote:

Its awesome potential to do harm.

Yes, but so what?  As I've mentiond a lot of other things that aren't essential have the potential to cause harm.

Quote:

But they don't believe in something. That's the point. They don't believe in atheism as that is impossible. You can't believe in the lack of a belief. if we can convince people to be rational and stop indoctrinating their children into theistic belief systems then you are not indoctrinating anyone into atheism and turning them into an unthinking drone, you are simply removing a useless (utterly incoherent) belief from existence.

I'm not talking about belief as in 'a person's religious faith', I'm talking about belief as in 'a principle or idea, etc accepted as true, especially without proof'.

Quote:

This is all aside from the fact that this is a hypothetical you have set up in which people's religion doesn't affect the society. Religions are spread because followers are ordered to recruit by their doctrine.

And the purpose of RRS is...?

Quote:

Name a religion that doesn't try and actively make its existence known so as to attract new recruits and then you will have a religion that only affects the believer. You will also have a religion of one.

As pointed out, it's not just religions. 

Passive religious faith is fine. No, really it is. What other people believe in the privacy of their own homes or their churches or whatever is no concern of you or I as long as it isn't contrary to the law. People have a right to freedom of religious expression - I believe that was clarified in the US Constitution's First Amendment.

Now I agree there is a problem when others try to impose their religion onto people who don't adhere to it and that needs to be fought off wherever it rears its ugly head.

Passively criticizing the RRS for criticizing religion is fine. No, really it is. What Patrician believes in the privacy of his own home or church or whatever is no concern of yours as long as it isn't contrary to the law. People have a right to freedom of religious expression - I believe that was clarified in the US Constitution's First Amendment.

Now I agree there is a problem when others try to impose their views that RRS shouldn't criticize religion onto others...oh, wait. That's exactly what Patrician is doing. My bad.

Go back to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.

Vessel wrote:

Yes, it is our business. We should discourage all people from holding irrational beliefs as it is an inherently dangerous practice.

What, you mean irrational beliefs like love, truth and honesty? Where's the rationality in those?

No, the strawman is 'religion causes harm'.  The correct statement is 'organised religion manipulated by a few crazy and evil bastards causes harm'.

Iruka Naminori wrote:

Passively criticizing the RRS for criticizing religion is fine. No, really it is. What Patrician believes in the privacy of his own home or church or whatever is no concern of yours as long as it isn't contrary to the law. People have a right to freedom of religious expression - I believe that was clarified in the US Constitution's First Amendment.

Now I agree there is a problem when others try to impose their views that RRS shouldn't criticize religion onto others...oh, wait. That's exactly what Patrician is doing. My bad.

Go back to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.

If Baby Jesus existed you would have made him cry with post. In fact, having FSM in your avatar would make him cry even more. Hell, it makes me tearful as FSM committs the biggest sin of all: that of not being funny.

Is it just me or have people who wear FSM T-shirts and have FSM avatars kind of missed the point about being an atheist? I'm sure it's just a joke but then so was scientology at one point.

Actually it still is, it's just become a bit more serious.

Oh yeah, the reason you woud have made Baby Jesus cry is because you've confused passive religious worship with active criticism. You've also failed to make the connection between religious evangelism and atheistic evangelism.

Parody is not for you.

Children should be taught to be critical thinkers, taught that the scientific method is the best means for understanding the existence into which they were born, taught that, regardless of what some might tell them, faith is not a virtue, taught that they are responsible for their own actions, taught that fear of punishment/desire of reward is not a solid basis for making moral decisions. Basically, children should be taught the thought processes that lead most to atheism, as they are the best tools we have available to form productive, compassionate, reality based societies. That theism is a fundamentally flawed basis for a worldview as it can never lead to reliable truth is a conclusion they should then arrive at on their own.

Vessel wrote:

Ghost of Amityville wrote:

Vessel wrote:

Children should be taught to be critical thinkers, taught that the scientific method is the best means for understanding the existence into which they were born, taught that, regardless of what some might tell them, faith is not a virtue, taught that they are responsible for their own actions, taught that fear of punishment/desire of reward is not a solid basis for making moral decisions. Basically, children should be taught the thought processes that lead most to atheism, as they are the best tools we have available to form productive, compassionate, reality based societies. That theism is a fundamentally flawed basis for a worldview as it can never lead to reliable truth is a conclusion they should then arrive at on their own.

What if a child doesn't believe that the scientific method is the best means for understanding the existence we are born into, but rather metaphysics is the best means; that faith is a virtue; and/or that theism isn't a fatally flawed basis for a worldview?

Anyone who feels that way is more than welcome to live their life in delusion. It certainly doesn't mean I should sit quietly by and allow them to propogate their ignorance amongst other members of society unchallenged. If they feel that these are the best methods by which to acquire reliable knowledge they are welcome to present their case. Of course, being as that I have never seen anyone who could show how faith leads to a reliable picture of reality, I highly doubt that will happen.

 

Quote:

Using your system, wouldn't that indeed be forcing something on a child in those circumstances?

I'm not talking jackboot enforcement here. Take what I said in the context of the conversation instead of pulling out the paragraph and acting as if I am condoning forcing people to believe a certain way. I am talking about what I feel would be best for society. Other's opinions may differ. They have every right to believe differently and pursue what they think isbest. Does this mean I should not voice my opinion, present my case, attempt to make changes that I see as beneficial?

Now, how do you know that people who feel that way are living their life in delusion and that they are in ignorance? Is it just your assertion that they don't have a reliable of reality? 

Anyone who feels that way is more than welcome to live their life in delusion. It certainly doesn't mean I should sit quietly by and allow them to propogate their ignorance amongst other members of society unchallenged. If they feel that these are the best methods by which to acquire reliable knowledge they are welcome to present their case. Of course, being as that I have never seen anyone who could show how faith leads to a reliable picture of reality, I highly doubt that will happen.

I am talking about what I feel would be best for society.

Does this mean I should not voice my opinion, present my case, attempt to make changes that I see as beneficial?

...children should be taught the thought processes that lead most to atheism

We should discourage all people from holding irrational beliefs as it is an inherently dangerous practice

Religions are spread because followers are ordered to recruit by their doctrine. (a flat out lie because you assume 100% of theists do this)

A group devoted to the eradication of irrational beliefs through rational discussion (assumptions, which is what I've seen usually coming from discussions towards anyone with a different view of belief, are not a form of rational discussion). No one is saying it is an acheivable goal, but I consider it to be an honorable one (just as the Nazis or KKK did?). It also isn't possible for me to change many other things I find wrong and speak o0ut against but that won't stop me from putting forth effort. (again just as the Nazis did?)

Godwin's law is amazingly accurate.

How some people can jump from "rational discussion" to "just like the Nazis" is beyond me.

When somebody starts to endorse the use of violence and terror to enforce their beliefs, then you might make the comparison. Until that point, you lose the debate for using emotionally charged hyperbole.

A group devoted to the eradication of irrational beliefs through rational discussion is not "preaching hate". Certainly not against people. That's what theists do. KKK, Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Witch hunts... Those are are Christian, remember?

RRS stands for rational discussion, not hate and violence. The stand taken is against irrational beliefs, not "a group being wrong because of their existance"! That is absurd! Many of the people here were theists in the past, and have family and friends who are still theists. We want those people to give up their superstitions; we do not want them hurt.

Are you engaging in philisophical debate, or are you chastising atheists as being wrong because of their existance, as you falsely accuse us of doing?

You accused Vessel of supporting ideas similar to Nazis or KKK, which he absolutely did not.

I countered by pointing out that KKK and many other harmful, hateful organizations and movements were Christian. I do not believe that the majority of Christians are like them, I am simply pointing out how absurd it is to compare an atheist to the KKK, or for that matter to the Nazis, who held to some strange mix of Christian symbology and pagan mysticism. They are not at all similar to atheists who wish to discuss the irrationalities of theism.

Because the question is irrelevant. But since it seems important to you, here goes: Hate speech has a tendency to lead to violence, or at least provide an environment where violence is likely to occur. Hate speech should be strongly discouraged by society for that very reason. That being said, it is possible for a group to preach hate but never commit violence. Though we must protect freedom of speech, I would strongly oppose any group that preached hate, and I would encourage others to oppose them as well.

While I do not believe all theists preach hate, it is clear to me that the vast majority of groups that do preach hate have some theistic belief at their core.

The concept of theism is fundamentally irrational. Theism is the belief that there is a god that created and rules the universe and has revealed himself to humans.

Using Christianity as one example of many, they believe the Bible is fact. To me it is just a bunch of books written by human beings a long time ago. If I ask for proof that it is true, none can be given. Therefor belief in the Bible is irrational.

I don't need to know "every single person's individual beliefs" to know that theism is irrational. It is irrational as a fundamental concept.

If you have seen atheist in this forum or elsewhere use hate speech against individuals or groups (as opposed to their beliefs) then I tell you right now that I am opposed to them, and it is clearly stated in the rules of the forum that they will not tolerate slander, libel, ad hominem attacks, trolling, abuse, bullying, or threats. I believe hate speech is covered by those.

Perhaps we should start a thread (if there isn't one already) where we could debate what exactly theism is. It is the core of this debate, after all.

There may not be absolute proof, but there is a preponderance of evidence. There is no evidence to support the veracity of the Bible. Theism is founded on a lack of evidence.

Nope. I would not mind if people judged me based on my irrational beliefs, since I am continuously seeking to eradicate them.

In my opinion, insults are not the same as hate speech. Insults are rude, and counterproductive in an argument, but they lack the degree of seriousness or generalization.

And statements like "Theism is irrational and should be eradicated" is not even an insult. It is a fact coupled with an opinion, and does not encourage violence against anybody. It is an opinion against a belief, not against the people themselves.

You seem to be elevating insults to the level of hate speech, which in my opinion is wrong and dangerous. It demeans the serious nature of hate speech and clouds what is already a difficult thing to define. I am not saying insults are ok, just that they are not nearly as serious.

However much your version of theism may be different from others, all versions fall under this definition. So yes, we can apply that definition to EVERY religious person.

This makes no sense. Something does not have to be the definition of a peaceful movement in order to be peaceful. Plus, this site is about discussion, which is used to avoid violence.

The problem here is that you are conflating anger and hate. They are related, but not the same. A person may be angry with a loved one, but that does not mean they hate them. A person may get angry with a stranger, but they can't hate them until they know them (bigotry and prejudice, which are also irrational, aside).

One might even insult a friend out of playfulness.

Also keep in mind that insults are (sadly) much more common on the internet, specifically because there is a much lower risk of violence. If a stranger was insulting you to your face, then I would agree that violence may be imminent. The context on message boards is much different.

The goal is not to remove it from every single person right now. As you said, there are people like you who will simply ignore all evidence that goes against your beliefs.

There are some, though, who will respond to rational arguments, analyze their beliefs in a way they've never done before, and come to the conclusion that they no longer need to hold superstitions. Those are the people I want to reach.

Eventually those who refuse to give up their fixed beliefs will grow old and die in the natural course of life. Hopefully the next generations will listen to reason.

There is no need for violence. In fact it is counterproductive for those of us who treasure reason.

That sounds like paranoia. Have you personally been threatened with bodily harm by somebody on this forum?

We assert that your beliefs are false. We have logical arguments that invalidate them. Your counterarguments are without merit.

Delusion is a strong word, but you are the one who says nothing could ever convince you to change your beliefs. It is not surprising that some may come to that conclusion.

Vessel wrote:

Anyone who feels that way is more than welcome to live their life in delusion. It certainly doesn't mean I should sit quietly by and allow them to propogate their ignorance amongst other members of society unchallenged. If they feel that these are the best methods by which to acquire reliable knowledge they are welcome to present their case. Of course, being as that I have never seen anyone who could show how faith leads to a reliable picture of reality, I highly doubt that will happen.

History has shown that this very attitude is nothing more than prejudice and hatred. It's the argument that radicals used against the Turks for the Crusades, the first settlers used against Natives, what plantation owners used against Africans and later what one race uses against another to show their superiority, and not to mention what one group would do to another for being the supreme race since they had the perceived "picture of reality."

The Patrician is correct and how you can't see the hate that is coming from you or even the mission statement of RRS is amazing. For example...

Vessel wrote:

Religions are spread because followers are ordered to recruit by their doctrine.

(a flat out lie because you assume 100% of theists do this)

Vessel wrote:

A group devoted to the eradication of irrational beliefs through rational discussion

 (assumptions, which is what I've seen usually coming from discussions towards anyone with a different view of belief, are not a form of rational discussion).

vessel wrote:

No one is saying it is an acheivable goal, but I consider it to be an honorable one

 (just as the Nazis or KKK did?)

Vessel wrote:

It also isn't possible for me to change many other things I find wrong and speak o0ut against but that won't stop me from putting forth effort.

 (again just as the Nazis did?)

Can you not see the anger?

Why do you direct this towards a group of people before you even know a single person?

You think I'm delusional or irritional because I believe in God yet you don't know why I do or how I live my life but yet you'll still assume to know me and those who I consider friends all from that one viewpoint?