Atheist trying to convert Theist!

[Father Heathen]

According to whom?

Historians and the observant.

 

[Dan4reason]

Well if you are trying to get your point across how else are you suppose to do it, if you don't say what you feel to be correct?

I already told you. You express what you think to be correct, not what you feel to be correct.

 

[Riverwolf]

To any unbiased student of history. Believing things for which there is no evidence, and in the case of the Abrahamic religions evidence against, is dangerous.

Sorry, I've never seen a convincing argument that this is the case. I, frankly, think that this kind of thing is just propaganda. (And FYI, propaganda often claims itself to be "unbiased", when I've never seen any indication that such a state is even possible.)

 

[Gloone]

Criticizing and scrutinizing irrational and unsubstantiated beliefs is in no way the same thing as proselytizing.
Also, ridiculing some of the ways people portray the idea of god and ridiculing some of things people attribute to the idea of god is not the same as ridiculing the idea of god itself.

You are right I am sure god can handle all ridicule whether people approve of it or not. Why use ridicule to get your point across though? That is not different than slapping someone upside the head with the back of your hand.

 

[aindiachai]

Does that automatically qualify you as an atheist or do you feel you have to live up or meet that standard?

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Could you please clarify?

 

[Gloone]

I already told you. You express what you think to be correct, not what you feel to be correct.

Really.. and the brain has absolute power over feelings? You might as well be belly up in a lake somewhere and put a sign on your belly that says; "don't mind me I am a dead fish".

 

[Riverwolf]

You are right I am sure god can handle all ridicule whether people approve of it or not. Why use ridicule to get your point across though? That is not different than slapping someone upside the head with the back of your hand.

Here, we're in agreement. Ridicule is, IMO, a cheap debate tactic used to take a shot at the opponents emotions, in an attempt to get one's own point across with more force, whether or not it's actually true.

After all, when emotions are riled up, thinking does get impaired, and thus counter-arguments become weaker.

 

[Gloone]

Historians and the observant.

For the most part. That doesn't mean all the information goes into the big book of atheism either.

 

[aindiachai]

Sorry, I've never seen a convincing argument that this is the case. I, frankly, think that this kind of thing is just propaganda.

Are you really saying that believing things without evidence, and sometimes in spite of evidence, is not dangerous? What would you consider to be a convincing case for it to be true?

(And FYI, propaganda often claims itself to be "unbiased", when I've never seen any indication that such a state is even possible.)

I am well aware of the definition of propaganda, thank you.

 

[Gloone]

Are you really saying that believing things without evidence, and sometimes in spite of evidence, is not dangerous? What would you consider to be a convincing case for it to be true?
I am well aware of the definition of propaganda, thank you.

Do you automatically assume that history is information without evidence. People didn't waste their life away recording information and documenting it for no reason.

 

[Riverwolf]

Are you really saying that believing things without evidence, and sometimes in spite of evidence, is not dangerous?

Not inherently dangerous, as in, inherently threatening to one's safety or life. So, yes.

What would you consider to be a convincing case for it to be true?

If every single theist (or at least the vast majority) was out to kill every one who had even a slightly different idea of God. Nothing in my experience is indicative of this being the case. I, myself, am a theist, but I'm also a pacifist, and tolerant of opposing viewpoints; one of my best friends is an atheist, and my girlfriend has completely different beliefs than I do.

 

[aindiachai]

Do you automatically assume that history is information without evidence. People didn't waste their life away recording information and documenting it for no reason.

What exactly does this have to do with emancipating people from theism? Or with the inherent dangers of theistic beliefs?

I am also not sure what "information" you are referring to. Would you care to clarify?

Also, is there any chance for clarification on this:

Does that automatically qualify you as an atheist or do you feel you have to live up or meet that standard?

 

[Father Heathen]

You are right I am sure god can handle all ridicule whether people approve of it or not.

Did I not just say that god and how humans portray god would not the same thing? The latter is a cartoon caricature of the former, especially concerning the abrahamic religions. The things religious people try to attribute to god would ironically be more insulting to god than an atheist's non-belief.

 

[Dan4reason]

Really.. and the brain has absolute power over feelings? You might as well be belly up in a lake somewhere and put a sign on your belly that says; "don't mind me I am a dead fish".

When it comes to intellectual things like the existence of a spirit dimension it is hard to make the journey of discovery with feelings which are made to deal with other people, find happiness, and make life decisions, but are not good at discovering great mysteries of the cosmos. Try discovering the real relationship between matter and energy with an emotion such as say ... empathy. These sort of issues are best forged aheady with science, analysis, reason, and deep thought. Sure we will have feelings about our opinions, but reason will rule, hopefully.

 

[Gloone]

What exactly does this have to do with emancipating people from theism? Or with the inherent dangers of theistic beliefs?

I am also not sure what "information" you are referring to. Would you care to clarify?

Also, is there any chance for clarification on this:

maybe in a minute. I thought you could follow a debate. now I have to backtrack and find your post.

 

[Riverwolf]

The latter is a cartoon caricature of the former, especially concerning the abrahamic religions.

The same thing's true in many Hindu schools of thought. The difference is, they admit it. ^_^ (Although they tend to use more evocative metaphors, like "the reflection of the moon on the water.")

 

[Twilight Hue]

Really.. and the brain has absolute power over feelings? You might as well be belly up in a lake somewhere and put a sign on your belly that says; "don't mind me I am a dead fish".

We all have feelings in varying degrees. Yet the rationale has a peculiar way of overriding emotion in face of what is obvious. Emotion as I see it is usually an indicator that there is increasing frustration over an inability to get a point across in debates. Usually due to no further rational/reasonable venues at the time to pursue further of which in pausing, there is further research or a concession made.

 

[Gloone]

Did I not just say that god and how humans portray god would not the same thing? The latter is a cartoon caricature of the former, especially concerning the abrahamic religions. The things religious people try to attribute to god would ironically be more insulting to god than an atheist's non-belief.

false gods are false gods whether you believe in them or not. It really makes no difference.

 

[Riverwolf]

What exactly does this have to do with emancipating people from theism

Okay, your choice of words is kinda scaring me, now. "Emancipation" is how the settlers viewed the way they treated the native Americans.

 

[Gloone]

We all have feelings in varying degrees. Yet the rationale has a peculiar way of overriding emotion in face of what is obvious. Emotion as I see it is usually an indicator that there is increasing frustration over an inability to get a point across in debates. Usually due to no further rational/reasonable venues at the time to pursue further of which in pausing, there is further research or a concession made.

People cannot rely on their brain for everything. That is about the dumbest thing I have ever herd. ie, just because you think something is true doesn't mean it is.