Atheists only please: Objections to Theism

[AfterGlow]

I'm interested in the nature of people's objections to theism, obviously there won't be a consensus as everybody thinks differently, I'm just as interested in the range of opinions as in the opinions themselves.

To make it easier I'll outline a few specific questions;

Is the basis of your objection based principally on rational rejection, or are you more concerned with the effects theism has on society?

Do you consider all theistic belief systems as equally redundant?

Do you consider all theistic beliefs systems as equally damaging?

Would you attempt to debate a theist if that theist kept their beliefs mostly to themselves i.e. didn't proselytise, was tolerant of atheism and other forms of theism?

Thanks

 

[Oneatatime]

Is the basis of your objection based principally on rational rejection, or are you more concerned with the effects theism has on society?

I am concerned about the effect which religion has on society because its founded on unsupported assertions. I do not think that its appropriate for society and government to be influenced by a set of beliefs and values which are built up such unsupported assertions. It is not good enough to say that these beliefs come from God or a Bible and therefore must be true if you haven't been able to establish that God exists, that the Bible is the word of God or that Gods views and beliefs themselves are moral.

Do you consider all theistic belief systems as equally redundant?
I consider all religions I've come across so far as being fundamentally flawed in that they are founded on unproven assertions.

Do you consider all theistic beliefs systems as equally damaging?

No. Religions come in many shapes and sizes as do their followers

Would you attempt to debate a theist if that theist kept their beliefs mostly to themselves i.e. didn't proselytise, was tolerant of atheism and other forms of theism?

I don't believe a theist can do such a thing because their views and beliefs are strongly influenced by that of their religion. Whatever arguement they put forward will be influenced by their religious beliefs potentially bringing them into conflict with the beliefs of other religions or views of atheist which may or may not be rational.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is the basis of your objection based principally on rational rejection, or are you more concerned with the effects theism has on society?

Rational rejection. I don't theism is generally good, but it ain't all bad. I'm not knowledgeable enuf to condemn it.

Do you consider all theistic belief systems as equally redundant?

I'm not sure what this means.

Do you consider all theistic beliefs systems as equally damaging?

No, but it's complicated. I'm not prepared to point a finger.

Would you attempt to debate a theist if that theist kept their beliefs mostly to themselves i.e. didn't proselytise, was tolerant of atheism and other forms of theism?

I generally don't debate, but I'll converse with anyone.

 

[AfterGlow]

I'm not sure what this means.

I meant, do you think all religions are equally misguided or unhelpful ways of looking at the world, or are there some religions that you see as having more positive points than others?

 

[Revoltingest]

I meant, do you think all religions are equally misguided or unhelpful ways of looking at the world, or are there some religions that you see as having more positive points than others?

Some strike me as better than others. I favor personal liberty, comportment with science, peacefulness, & allowing consumption of pork products & shellfish.

 

[Alceste]

I have no objection to belief in gods, only belief in the infallibility of scripture and authoritarian religious institutions.

My objection is due to the extremely negative social impact of deferring moral responsibility and authority to any place other than our own conscience, balanced by feedback from our friends and families.

Only authoritarian institutions do more harm than good, in my opinion, so Eastern, pagan, mystical, pantheistic and some liberal Abrahamic religions (UU, for example) get a pass. I recognize these fulfil a basic need many people have to insert meaning and narrative into the unknown to make it less intimidating and overwhelming.

I don't "debate theists". I debate people who I feel have failed to construct an internally coherent, rational, evidence-based argument. Some of these people happen to be theists. People who quote out of a religious book to try to prove a point are particularly easy pickin's.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is the basis of your objection based principally on rational rejection, or are you more concerned with the effects theism has on society?

Both, but the effecs on society are more important, at least in the short term.

Do you consider all theistic belief systems as equally redundant?

Not sure what you mean here.

Do you consider all theistic beliefs systems as equally damaging?

No, not by a long shot. I admire a fair number of them. A few are nothing but scum. Some are all-out criminal, even.

Would you attempt to debate a theist if that theist kept their beliefs mostly to themselves i.e. didn't proselytise, was tolerant of atheism and other forms of theism?

I don't know that keeping his beliefs to himself is necessary, but otherwise, sure.

 

[LuisDantas]

I meant, do you think all religions are equally misguided or unhelpful ways of looking at the world, or are there some religions that you see as having more positive points than others?

Quite a few theistic religions are nothing short of admirable. Even rotten beliefs are sometimes saved by the inquisitive minds and moral character of a few of their adherents. I've seen it happen, and in fact I believe that it is a major and necessary occurrence in all beliefs.

 

[Copernicus]

Is the basis of your objection based principally on rational rejection, or are you more concerned with the effects theism has on society?

That's a bit of a false dichotomy. If religion is irrational and widespread, then it cannot fail to have an effect on society. It can be an adverse effect if it accustoms people to making irrational arguments and ignoring rational rebuttals. Religion has certainly made it difficult for scientific advances to take place in a timely fashion, and extremist believers continue to try to attack the science curriculum in public schools.

Do you consider all theistic belief systems as equally redundant?

Some religious communities are more enlightened than others when it comes to promoting humanistic values. Not all atheistic communities are enlightened. (Communist materialism comes to mind.)

Do you consider all theistic beliefs systems as equally damaging?

Not at all. I think that fundamentalist versions of theistic systems can be the most damaging, because they tend to promote dogmatic thinking.

Would you attempt to debate a theist if that theist kept their beliefs mostly to themselves i.e. didn't proselytise, was tolerant of atheism and other forms of theism?

I will debate anyone who wants to debate with me. I like to debate. It helps me to clarify my own thinking, and I often learn new and interesting things. More tolerant, liberal believers tend to have more interesting things to say, so I am happy to engage in debate. Severe proselytizers can be like having a debate with the dining room table.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I object! "Same faith debates - atheists only?"

 

[Noaidi]

I have no objection to belief in gods, only belief in the infallibility of scripture and authoritarian religious institutions.

My objection is due to the extremely negative social impact of deferring moral responsibility and authority to any place other than our own conscience, balanced by feedback from our friends and families.

Only authoritarian institutions do more harm than good, in my opinion, so Eastern, pagan, mystical, pantheistic and some liberal Abrahamic religions (UU, for example) get a pass. I recognize these fulfil a basic need many people have to insert meaning and narrative into the unknown to make it less intimidating and overwhelming.

I'm with you here, Alceste. When another's religious view becomes an imposition on non-believers or believers of other faiths, then it becomes a problem for me. Like you, I fully accept that the majority of our species feels a need to believe in something, and I have no problem with that.

 

[Penumbra]

Is the basis of your objection based principally on rational rejection, or are you more concerned with the effects theism has on society?

Both.

Philosophically, my objection is based on a lack of evidence in favor of, and an abundance of evidence against, the existence of deities. Practically, when I see people killing over religion, banning homosexual marriage for no reason other than bigotry and religion, not allowing freedom of religion or from religion, getting in the way of scientific progress, putting money towards megachurches rather than the poor, indoctrinating children, promoting sadistic beliefs, and things of that nature, then I am concerned with the effects.

More or less it has to do with the effects of a lack of critical thinking and compassion rather than something specific to religion.

Do you consider all theistic belief systems as equally redundant?

Do you consider all theistic beliefs systems as equally damaging?

I don't understand your use of the word redundant in this context.

No, I don't find all beliefs equally damaging. Some of them are rather admirable, while others are rather hallow and problematic. Some are more rational than others.

Would you attempt to debate a theist if that theist kept their beliefs mostly to themselves i.e. didn't proselytise, was tolerant of atheism and other forms of theism?

Only if it comes up in conversation. I debate on a forum like this because that is partly what it is intended for. And I debate offline if something comes up in conversation that I feel should be addressed.

Actually, I tend to debate more with open-minded, educated, and worldy theists that don't press their beliefs than ones that do. They tend to be the ones I wish to converse with. I only allow a smaller subset of my time to discuss things with fundamentalists because they usually aren't paying attention anyway.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm interested in the nature of people's objections to theism, obviously there won't be a consensus as everybody thinks differently, I'm just as interested in the range of opinions as in the opinions themselves.

To make it easier I'll outline a few specific questions;

Is the basis of your objection based principally on rational rejection, or are you more concerned with the effects theism has on society?

Do you consider all theistic belief systems as equally redundant?

Do you consider all theistic beliefs systems as equally damaging?

Would you attempt to debate a theist if that theist kept their beliefs mostly to themselves i.e. didn't proselytise, was tolerant of atheism and other forms of theism?

Thanks

I reject the various claims of religion due to them being irrational and unsubstantiated. However, I think people should have the right to believe and practice as they wish as long as they don't violate the rights of others in the process.
Religion becomes a problem when it's imposed upon others against their will or used as an excuse or justification to oppress and victimize others. I also dislike how it encourages willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

To make it easier I'll outline a few specific questions;

Is the basis of your objection based principally on rational rejection, or are you more concerned with the effects theism has on society?

My basis for objection to theism is principally based on rational rejection. Theism, in and of itself promotes irrational thoughts and is likely to cause negative effects on society. Free thought is just as important, if not more, than free speech.

Do you consider all theistic belief systems as equally redundant?

Yes.

Do you consider all theistic beliefs systems as equally damaging?

Yes, insofar as they promote irrationality, which starts a chain of events. You could call it a slippery slope, really.

Would you attempt to debate a theist if that theist kept their beliefs mostly to themselves i.e. didn't proselytise, was tolerant of atheism and other forms of theism?

I would debate theists even if they did not do all the things you listed. I would attempt to find out why they believe what they believe and learn something in order to revisit my own position on theism.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Is the basis of your objection based principally on rational rejection, or are you more concerned with the effects theism has on society?

My objection is based on the fact that almost every society in history has invented some kind of religion and all the ones currently in use today cannot be an exception to this. I think theism has positive benefits to society, it's when they try and force their beliefs and the attendant morals on others that i start having issues.

Do you consider all theistic belief systems as equally redundant?

They would only be redundant if people were holding more than one belief system as true at the same time.

Do you consider all theistic beliefs systems as equally damaging?

Nope, only the ones who try and force their beliefs and the attendant morals on others. I have interacted with different wiccan/witch/pagan covens who not only preach love and understanding for all but practise it as well.

Would you attempt to debate a theist if that theist kept their beliefs mostly to themselves i.e. didn't proselytise, was tolerant of atheism and other forms of theism?

I would debate it if they wanted to, but if they keep it to themselves and aren't hurting anyone because of it i don't see the need.

-Q

 

[AfterGlow]

People seem to be having trouble with what I meant by redundant.

In this case redundant should be defined as: outmoded, superfluous, unnecessary, unneeded.

 

[Revoltingest]

People seem to be having trouble with what I meant by redundant.
In this case redundant should be defined as: outmoded, superfluous, unnecessary, unneeded.

That seems a British usage of the word....do you swing that way?

 

[Magic Man]

I'm interested in the nature of people's objections to theism, obviously there won't be a consensus as everybody thinks differently, I'm just as interested in the range of opinions as in the opinions themselves.

To make it easier I'll outline a few specific questions;

Is the basis of your objection based principally on rational rejection, or are you more concerned with the effects theism has on society?

I reject theism because it has insufficient evidence to support it, we can trace how god-concepts evolved and every claim I've heard about a god can be logically refuted.

Do you consider all theistic belief systems as equally redundant?

You mean, do I consider them to be the same, for all intents and purposes? If so, then yes, I do.

Do you consider all theistic beliefs systems as equally damaging?

Not at all. Some theistic religions are much more damaging than others.

Would you attempt to debate a theist if that theist kept their beliefs mostly to themselves i.e. didn't proselytise, was tolerant of atheism and other forms of theism?

Thanks

No, of course not. That's why I'm here. This is a place where people come to discuss/debate religion, so everything goes. In the real world, I'll talk about religion, but much more cautiously and only when it's brought up.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm interested in the nature of people's objections to theism, obviously there won't be a consensus as everybody thinks differently, I'm just as interested in the range of opinions as in the opinions themselves.

To make it easier I'll outline a few specific questions;

Is the basis of your objection based principally on rational rejection, or are you more concerned with the effects theism has on society?

Do you consider all theistic belief systems as equally redundant?

Do you consider all theistic beliefs systems as equally damaging?

Would you attempt to debate a theist if that theist kept their beliefs mostly to themselves i.e. didn't proselytise, was tolerant of atheism and other forms of theism?

Thanks

I don't really have any objections to theism. I might as well have objections to the sky being blue. I personally reject it, as I don't need it, and it's generally counter to my worldview, but I realize that I'm in the minority and religion/theism are nothing more than natural symptoms of the human condition.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is the basis of your objection based principally on rational rejection, or are you more concerned with the effects theism has on society?

I'm going to have to be a slippy sod and answer "both", really. I would say that I am more concerned with theism's effect on society, but even if theism never had any negative impact on society I would still object to it as an irrational position.

Do you consider all theistic belief systems as equally redundant?

Yes.

Do you consider all theistic beliefs systems as equally damaging?

No, many belief systems have done far more damage than other belief systems, with the obvious standouts being Christianity, Islam and Judaism. That doesn't mean, however, that I object to those belief structures that much more than I would object to any other.

Would you attempt to debate a theist if that theist kept their beliefs mostly to themselves i.e. didn't proselytise, was tolerant of atheism and other forms of theism?

Yes.