Do you think it's important whether others believe in God or not?

[Quagmire]

I don't think so.
I find I have more in common with an atheist who stands in awe of nature than a dogmatic literalist who loves the city.

I agree. I think an atheist and a theist who can both experience the awe are like two people listening to the same music, they just have different opinions about where it's coming from. Whereas the dogmatic literalist is more like someone reading the sheet music with their fingers in their ears.

Yet the dogmatic atheist who shouts SCIENCE at me and has no appreciation of poetry seems as alien as the fundamentalist.

Again agree. I think both are trying to experience reality second-hand, ie., with their heads.

Is dogmatic or not a more important distinction than theist or not?

Probably.

 

[Photonic]

I agree. I think an atheist and a theist who can both experience the awe are like two people listening to the same music, they just have different opinions about where it's coming from. Whereas the dogmatic literalist is more like someone reading the sheet music with their fingers in their ears.



Again agree. I think both are trying to experience reality second-hand, ie., with their heads.



Probably.

I'm assuming you mean shouting science at you as being unconvinced of anything unless it is firmly rooted in scientific research.

Someone shouting science at someone that has been proven just means you are plugging your ears.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I don't think its important weather others believe in god or not, as long as they are good people, the only thing that is important is to understand if that belief has some dangerous aspects to it, then it becomes important to know and be proactive in providing the truth to those people about their misconceptions and try to give them the understanding of humanism and hopefully we all will live in peace.

 

[Willamena]

A person's beliefs affect their actions, and other people's actions will affect the people around them, potentially including people I care about or me.

I think that these actions tend, on average, to have better consequences when they're based on true beliefs, and when it comes right down to it, the question of God is one of the truth or falsehood of a particular factual proposition.

If there was any such beast...

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I do find it necessary to keep it to yourself unless asked.

 

[kittehstalker]

You know, as long as it doesn't interfere with progress I don't care. If God turns out to be real, I'll be shocked but I'll despise him.

 

[McBell]

Is dogmatic or not a more important distinction than theist or not?

For me it most definitely is.

 

[McBell]

If God turns out to be real, I'll be shocked but I'll despise him.

Why?

In my opinion this is no different than taking everything you hear about someone at face value with out ever even talking to them and despising them simply because of what you have heard, not what you actually know about them.

With all the different pictures that have been painted of god, if he does actually exist, I would be most interested to see which portraits of god came the closest to the real thing.

Seems to me that despising someone, even god, based solely on rumours, gossip, hearsay, etc. makes you no better than those who presented the info in the first place.

 

[connermt]

I don't think so.
I find I have more in common with an atheist who stands in awe of nature than a dogmatic literalist who loves the city.
Yet the dogmatic atheist who shouts SCIENCE at me and has no appreciation of poetry seems as alien as the fundamentalist.
Is dogmatic or not a more important distinction than theist or not?

If the christian god is true, then yes it's important. Personally, I don't believe the christian god to be true so to me, it's not really that important.
Many things (both good and bad) have been done in the name of this god - rather it exists or not. I'm not sure what the % is one way or the other though.

 

[dust1n]

I don't think so.
I find I have more in common with an atheist who stands in awe of nature than a dogmatic literalist who loves the city.
Yet the dogmatic atheist who shouts SCIENCE at me and has no appreciation of poetry seems as alien as the fundamentalist.
Is dogmatic or not a more important distinction than theist or not?

I think I communicate well with generally anyone who is on the left.

Seriously though, I couldn't care what people think or believe. The only thing that bothers me is when that belief has reached at point in which the believer is so convinced of his belief that he finds himself the right to kill (or to be extremely narrow-minded and a ********* to those who disagree vehemently, even on trivial things).

 

[9Westy9]

I don't think so.
I find I have more in common with an atheist who stands in awe of nature than a dogmatic literalist who loves the city.
Yet the dogmatic atheist who shouts SCIENCE at me and has no appreciation of poetry seems as alien as the fundamentalist.
Is dogmatic or not a more important distinction than theist or not?

I don't see any reason why theism and atheism are important in everyday life.

 

[Iti oj]

I don't think so.
I find I have more in common with an atheist who stands in awe of nature than a dogmatic literalist who loves the city.
Yet the dogmatic atheist who shouts SCIENCE at me and has no appreciation of poetry seems as alien as the fundamentalist.
Is dogmatic or not a more important distinction than theist or not?

i think its more about what implications their beliefs hold...