Religious Insensitivity

[A Vestigial Mote]

A few comments on the video posted; perhaps you will provide your feedback?

The comparison between belief that Elvis is alive and belief in a supernatural God is only humorous because in the example: The person is talking about Elvis being alive in a job interview where discussion of Elvis is wholly irrelevant. It would be equally comical for an interviewer to ask a candidate for a job opening if they believe that Elvis is alive as part of the interview process. Asking about belief in God as part of the interview process might even be illegal.

In a religious debate, if a person speaks about God as a real being with super natural abilities, that is not the same as speaking about Elvis being alive in a Job Interview.

Because of this, I propose that venue and the topic being discussed are important to consider. If the topic is religious, and the belief is not presented as 'preachy', I don't think that the belief should be ridiculed. I think it's rude. Of course, that means excluding comic relief would also exclude many Atheists from religious conversations if they have little to contribute besides criticism.

However, I think that the believer in this video did make some key mistakes. And the individual did embarrass them selves in the video. The first mistake was posture and delivery. The 'believer' visually became uhhhh.... I'm trying to think of the right word. Puffed-up? Egotistical? But I don't think that was intentional. I think that speaking about a lofty metaphysical subject rendered a lofty, puffed-up delivery.

The other mistake I think the 'believer' made, is that when Sam Harris asked probing questions about God, the believer started talking about Sam specifically. The 'believer' implied that Sam's image of himself was flawed, that the believer's POV was correct, and that not adopting this POV was a "mistake". That in my opinion is a big no-no. But it's a trap that I see 'believers' falling into all the time. And honestly, I don't know if it's a Freudian slip, letting their true feelings of superiority leak out, or if it's a mistake resulting from the pressure they are feeling when their belief is questioned. It could even be the pressure of anticipating their beliefs being questioned. Or, it could be that this specific believer actually does feel superior, and Sam did a good job exposing it. It's hard to tell.

What do you think?

And as a practical question for RF: Do you think that non-believers have good reason to pressure, criticize, and ridicule believers and religious people in a religious debate? Is it appropriate as comic relief even if the non-believer has nothing to contribute to the conversation? Is it appropriate as a means of exposing the believer's flaws?

I don't think Sam Harris necessarily selected the "job interview" venue as the specific venue that these things are brought up in where it should be questioned or might come up against ridicule. If you note, he says that "our society" has a built-in mechanism that discourages people talking about crazy beliefs like "Elvis is still alive." The job interview was merely an obvious example where something like that belief in Elvis might put your actual prospects in jeopardy. i.e. - you don't get the job, because people think you're nuts.

And to be honest, the above is EXACTLY why I feel that religious beliefs are taboo in a job interview... because if, as an interviewee, your beliefs don't match the interviewer's exactly, then talk about it might lead to the interviewer thinking "This guy's nuts!" - possibly even if both of them are just two different denominations of Christian! And not hiring someone based on beliefs THAT CANNOT BE VERIFIED one way or the other (that is, not in favor of the interviewer or the interviewee) are a completely unfair basis by which to judge someone as fit (or not) for employment.

And so, I believe Sam's comments were intended for more general application - likening belief in Elvis remaining alive to this day with no compelling evidence to belief in God with no compelling evidence. What he was saying, to my mind, was that a lot of believers are hypocrites in a way. That is, they would laugh along with everyone else at the guy who believes Elvis is still alive - which is merely a belief for which there is not sufficient, compelling evidence, and yet those same people will believe all sorts of other religious claims with the same complete lack of sufficient, compelling evidence! Just because the claims are religious (and not about Elvis) they get a free pass! And Sam's pointing out how ridiculous that is.

And as for your question about RF - a lot of times, the person doing the ridiculing of unsupported/unsupportable/indemonstrable claims being made is a "hardened veteran" of such, and so far, in their experience, nothing has worked. Civil discourse doesn't get people to admit that they don't really know, walls of text and research and logical thought experiments don't work to get people to admit that they don't really know... nothing works. And so a combination of frustration and "maybe this will turn some heads" leads to ridicule, and trying to emotionally beat the "I just know" out of the opposition.

And while I can't, in good conscience, say it is "right," I certainly don't think it is wrong. Just think of it this way - not once has a believer's statements about me that were derogatory or inflammatory actually hurt my feelings. I may "puff up", in a manner of speaking, and sound indignant, to let them know they aren't being cool, but in the end, I almost always come back with reasoned points or revealing questions, answering to most (if not all) of their objections/comments/slurs. This is something I see from most atheists I read also. But this is something I RARELY see from believers. They are more prone to jump to completely emotional responses, anger even, and are a lot more prone to not answer to certain points or questions... or run away from the argument altogether. I see it time and time and time again. I don't think many atheists get "hurt" by theist comments, I don't. They fight back, and they consistently fight back, and don't let up until they feel some fairly resolved point has been met, or the other person stops replying.

 

[charlie sc]

I'm a strong, independent little Femboy who isn't afraid to eat his crow dinner in front of others. Anyway, I think some of the religious people on this forum, not all, are a little upset by the deep expressions against Christianity lately. I'm a skeptic that this frustration was always channeled in the best, most clearest way by them. However now that I've thought it over, I personally, whether or not anyone else does, have to choose my sense of morality over my ideology. For that reason, I support their view and fathom it may create peace for both sides to be less flippant. And maybe, possibly, the Christians even have it right that the nonChristians started it, but I really can't say for sure, nor do I want to say for sure, because it wouldn't be fair to both sides to say.

I don't really think the staff can help these particular matters too much other than dousing the occasional fire as at some point, we need the freedom to look at ourselves and what we seem to be doing. It's much more personal and touchy-feely to do so, and I think leads to more long-term progress.

I don't fathom I'll make many friends from this topic, but oh well. Atheists may see the topic as me not supporting them when actually, I think it may create a less hostile environment for both groups, so guess I'm demonstrating that tough love everyone hates in my pursuit of my greatest understanding of things.

I'm inviting @usfan to this topic but ask him to try to keep it civilized if possible too.

My 2c.

How are you treated by Christians in your community?

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm a strong, independent little Femboy who isn't afraid to eat his crow dinner in front of others. Anyway, I think some of the religious people on this forum, not all, are a little upset by the deep expressions against Christianity lately. I'm a skeptic that this frustration was always channeled in the best, most clearest way by them. However now that I've thought it over, I personally, whether or not anyone else does, have to choose my sense of morality over my ideology. For that reason, I support their view and fathom it may create peace for both sides to be less flippant. And maybe, possibly, the Christians even have it right that the nonChristians started it, but I really can't say for sure, nor do I want to say for sure, because it wouldn't be fair to both sides to say.

I don't really think the staff can help these particular matters too much other than dousing the occasional fire as at some point, we need the freedom to look at ourselves and what we seem to be doing. It's much more personal and touchy-feely to do so, and I think leads to more long-term progress.

I don't fathom I'll make many friends from this topic, but oh well. Atheists may see the topic as me not supporting them when actually, I think it may create a less hostile environment for both groups, so guess I'm demonstrating that tough love everyone hates in my pursuit of my greatest understanding of things.

I'm inviting @usfan to this topic but ask him to try to keep it civilized if possible too.

My 2c.

I doubt that the emotional component will ever be eliminated on such topics, try as one might. A stronger attempt at moderation by the staff may help, or it may harm. You generally end up with escalating censorship. I think a more rough and tumble forum is better, even though feelings will get hurt and offense will happen.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

How are you treated by Christians in your community?

I hope that by understanding them, they will try and understand me. I think the division is too great between the LGBTQ+ and the religious communities, we may never agree intellectually but that doesn't mean we have to tear each other down.

And if none of that works, I can always slip into something more comfortable and change their mind that way. Maybe put on some soft music and go out on the terrace with them and we look deeply into each other's eyes.

 

[Enoch07]

I don't fathom I'll make many friends from this topic, but oh well.

Nothing wrong with trying to spread some love and asking for some compassion form both sides of an issue.

#respect

 

[dybmh]

@A Vestigial Mote ,

regarding the elvis metaphor...

I'm still not there yet. The difference is, virtually no one believes that Elvis is still alive. But many many people believe in God.

Here's how I view it; and maybe you can offer more feedback?

Let's assume that God is not real and Atheists are correct and Theists are incorrect. In my mind, Atheists, if correct, are like people who have discovered that the world is round. But many many people still see the world as flat. It makes logical sense that people believe the world is flat. It's what they were taught, it certainly appears flat. People haven't flown on airplanes or seen pictures from space yet. In this example it is perfectly reasonable, wrong, but reasonable to believe that the world is flat. It would be cruel to ridicule these people.

But today, when we have all of this evidence that the world is round and not flat. And people are taught in school that the world is round, and most people's parents and grand parents agree that the world is round not flat... it is comical to find someone who is adamant that that the world is flat.

Today, the overwhelming majority of people believe that Elvis is dead. But most people do not agree that God is not real. A lot of people believe that God is real. And that belief doesn't occur in a vacuum. Ridiculing the belief that God is real also ridicules the parents and grand parents who taught their children that God is real. Ridiculing the belief that God is real ridicules the teachers who taught the student that God is real. Ridiculing that God is real ridicules a person's own life experiences that led them to believe that God is real. And until it is an overwhelming agreed upon fact that God is not real, then I propose that comparing the belief in God to belief that Elvis is alive is a false equivalence. It's the same with the comparing belief in Mother Goose to the belief in God. Virtually no one believes that there's a Goose somewhere writing children's stories. it is a gross exaggeration. Assigning equivalent absurdity to belief in God as to belief in Mother Goose is in itself ridiculous.

@Unguru pointed this out recently. Equating the absurdity of believing in God to believing in Mother Goose is a logical fallacy. So is equating the absurdity of believing in God to believing that Elvis is still alive. It is the Appeal to Ridicule-Fallacy.

Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy that attempts to make a claim look ridiculous by mocking it or exaggerating it in a negative way. Source

I think the problem is, that so so many people have attempted ( and failed miserably ) to prove that God exists. Because of these past failed attempts, the belief in God appears ridiculous to non-believers. Hence the ridicule.

Thoughts?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I feel the responders of this thread have generated some good responses which have expanded my mind.

 

[charlie sc]

I hope that by understanding them, they will try and understand me. I think the division is too great between the LGBTQ+ and the religious communities, we may never agree intellectually but that doesn't mean we have to tear each other down.

And if none of that works, I can always slip into something more comfortable and change their mind that way. Maybe put on some soft music and go out on the terrace with them and we look deeply into each other's eyes.

I appreciate your optimism, however, in my experience, it's very difficult to change anyone's mind. Especially so if their identity revolves around the thing in question. Atheism, as a strong identity, is a direct manifestation of religion. Bowlers don't care about people who are, say, non-bowlers, however, because non-theism is so prevalent in some religions, atheism has become prevalent and salient. If the mainstream religions disappeared or didn't care about non-belief, atheism an identity wouldn't be important or relevant. Except for the atheist trolls and POEs in forums, most atheists just want to express their right to believe what they want to or be free without judgement. Just having dialogue helps and this is quite a stretch from the past.

Though, if you want to try seduce some Christians, sure

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Except for the atheist trolls and POEs in forums, most atheists just want to express their right to believe what they want to or be free without judgement. Just having dialogue helps and this is quite a stretch from the past

Bull****. Name these "atheist beliefs"

 

[charlie sc]

Bull****. Name these "atheist beliefs"

Lol, morality without religion as one

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

@A Vestigial Mote ,

regarding the elvis metaphor...

I'm still not there yet. The difference is, virtually no one believes that Elvis is still alive. But many many people believe in God.

Here's how I view it; and maybe you can offer more feedback?

Let's assume that God is not real and Atheists are correct and Theists are incorrect. In my mind, Atheists, if correct, are like people who have discovered that the world is round. But many many people still see the world as flat. It makes logical sense that people believe the world is flat. It's what they were taught, it certainly appears flat. People haven't flown on airplanes or seen pictures from space yet. In this example it is perfectly reasonable, wrong, but reasonable to believe that the world is flat. It would be cruel to ridicule these people.

But today, when we have all of this evidence that the world is round and not flat. And people are taught in school that the world is round, and most people's parents and grand parents agree that the world is round not flat... it is comical to find someone who is adamant that that the world is flat.

Today, the overwhelming majority of people believe that Elvis is dead. But most people do not agree that God is not real. A lot of people believe that God is real. And that belief doesn't occur in a vacuum. Ridiculing the belief that God is real also ridicules the parents and grand parents who taught their children that God is real. Ridiculing the belief that God is real ridicules the teachers who taught the student that God is real. Ridiculing that God is real ridicules a person's own life experiences that led them to believe that God is real. And until it is an overwhelming agreed upon fact that God is not real, then I propose that comparing the belief in God to belief that Elvis is alive is a false equivalence. It's the same with the comparing belief in Mother Goose to the belief in God. Virtually no one believes that there's a Goose somewhere writing children's stories. it is a gross exaggeration. Assigning equivalent absurdity to belief in God as to belief in Mother Goose is in itself ridiculous.

@Unguru pointed this out recently. Equating the absurdity of believing in God to believing in Mother Goose is a logical fallacy. So is equating the absurdity of believing in God to believing that Elvis is still alive. It is the Appeal to Ridicule-Fallacy.

Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy that attempts to make a claim look ridiculous by mocking it or exaggerating it in a negative way. Source

I think the problem is, that so so many people have attempted ( and failed miserably ) to prove that God exists. Because of these past failed attempts, the belief in God appears ridiculous to non-believers. Hence the ridicule.

Thoughts?

It all boils down to whether or not a person has compelling evidential support for what they are claiming when others have conflicting ideas, the reasons for their belief and the surety with which they present the claims. If you don't like the "Elvis is still alive" proposition - because of the idea that these people are denying actual evidence and are therefore more demonstrably "in the wrong", then we can easily turn to something like claims that Bigfoot is real. This, like the proposition that "god exists" are on the same footing. There are photos supposedly of "Bigfoot" just as there are texts that were supposedly inspired by God - and that's really about all there is to go on, and neither proposition can actually be falsified. How can we prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist? What sort of evidence do we have to definitively conclude that Bigfoot does not exist? We don't have anything. But what we do have is the fact that the evidence FOR the proposition that Bigfoot exists is not compelling, is often proven to be spurious or counterfeit, eyewitness evidence has not proved consistent or reproducible to any compelling extent. This is exactly the same situation we are in with god claims. The end question is "are these people warranted to believe in god as fervently as they do, given the evidence we have in-hand?" When the answer is "no," then you open yourself up to potential ridicule by holding such a position.

And I maintain, as much as everyone is loathe to admit it, ridicule is a helpful tool in the human socializing arsenal. It is what helped knock "Flat Earth" theories to the fringes (as you hinted at). It is what keeps many people from holding EVEN MORE OUTLANDISH beliefs than they do hold. If anything anyone imagined would simply be accepted, and seriously discussed as a real possibility by all their peers when they mentioned it, what possible incentive would anyone have for leaving their fantasies behind in favor of reality? Can you imagine if we had thousands upon thousands of "theories" as to what aliens were like - and ALL of them had to simply be accepted by everyone else, simply because we were afraid to point out how ridiculous it is for people to be believing such things before they are evidenced? Closer to reality/home - what if someone comes to you with absolutely wild conspiracy theories? Do you simply feed into their mania, even when possible cognitive dissonance is shown to be occurring, simply because you're afraid to hit them with the hard truth? Let's say you do try to civilly talk them down out of it, and all they do is get defensive, and further entrench themselves, and say that their tin-foil-hat overlords told them that "this day would come" and that they would be persecuted and told they were wrong? What then? Almost your only hope at that point is that enough people tell them to screw off and get out of their face with their unsupportable ideas, and check-in to reality, that they finally give up. If they have compelling evidence, however? Reveal it!!!! Then the deed is done... it's over... no more ridicule... you're right! Hooray!

Also - I don't care if I am insulting someone's parents, or their grandparents, or their great-grandparents if I tell them their unsupported ideas are entirely unsupported. I couldn't care any less, to be honest. The moment I read that part of your reply, I was simply shaking my head. As if the number of people now or in our ancestry who held a belief make it correct to believe. That is argumentum ad populum - thinking of how you mentioned the "appeal to ridicule."

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Lol, morality without religion as one

Oh really. I was under the impression that atheism isn't a belief system or a philosophy. Please tell me more of this "atheist morality"

 

[Road Warrior]

I'm a strong, independent little Femboy who isn't afraid to eat his crow dinner in front of others. Anyway, I think some of the religious people on this forum, not all, are a little upset by the deep expressions against Christianity lately. I'm a skeptic that this frustration was always channeled in the best, most clearest way by them. However now that I've thought it over, I personally, whether or not anyone else does, have to choose my sense of morality over my ideology. For that reason, I support their view and fathom it may create peace for both sides to be less flippant. And maybe, possibly, the Christians even have it right that the nonChristians started it, but I really can't say for sure, nor do I want to say for sure, because it wouldn't be fair to both sides to say.

I don't really think the staff can help these particular matters too much other than dousing the occasional fire as at some point, we need the freedom to look at ourselves and what we seem to be doing. It's much more personal and touchy-feely to do so, and I think leads to more long-term progress.

I don't fathom I'll make many friends from this topic, but oh well. Atheists may see the topic as me not supporting them when actually, I think it may create a less hostile environment for both groups, so guess I'm demonstrating that tough love everyone hates in my pursuit of my greatest understanding of things.

I'm inviting @usfan to this topic but ask him to try to keep it civilized if possible too.

My 2c.

Let’s not forget that this, nor any other forum, is an actual cross-section of humanity. It’s a subset of political and religious junkies (yes, that includes atheists, agnostics, whatever). As such, people come here to discuss those issues, but more often just rant to various degrees. Some people have a very extreme attitude and express a large amount of antipathy against their opposites, sometimes to the point of hate. Others are more middle of the road and can see both sides, even if they lean one way or another. The extremists make the most noise and express the most emotions. The moderates are more stoic and factual.

IMO, most people are among those middle-of-the-roaders, but it’s the very small minority of extremists who get all the attention since their voices are the loudest and most disturbing. Pay them no mind, or, at a minimum, don’t believe that a handful of nutjobs are how the majority feel.

 

[charlie sc]

Oh really. I was under the impression that atheism isn't a belief system or a philosophy. Please tell me more of this "atheist morality"

Lol

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It all boils down to whether or not a person has compelling evidential support for what they are claiming when others have conflicting ideas, the reasons for their belief and the surety with which they present the claims. If you don't like the "Elvis is still alive" proposition - because of the idea that these people are denying actual evidence and are therefore more demonstrably "in the wrong", then we can easily turn to something like claims that Bigfoot is real. This, like the proposition that "god exists" are on the same footing. There are photos supposedly of "Bigfoot" just as there are texts that were supposedly inspired by God - and that's really about all there is to go on, and neither proposition can actually be falsified. How can we prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist? What sort of evidence do we have to definitively conclude that Bigfoot does not exist? We don't have anything. But what we do have is the fact that the evidence FOR the proposition that Bigfoot exists is not compelling, is often proven to be spurious or counterfeit, eyewitness evidence has not proved consistent or reproducible to any compelling extent. This is exactly the same situation we are in with god claims. The end question is "are these people warranted to believe in god as fervently as they do, given the evidence we have in-hand?" When the answer is "no," then you open yourself up to potential ridicule by holding such a position.

And I maintain, as much as everyone is loathe to admit it, ridicule is a helpful tool in the human socializing arsenal. It is what helped knock "Flat Earth" theories to the fringes (as you hinted at). It is what keeps many people from holding EVEN MORE OUTLANDISH beliefs than they do hold. If anything anyone imagined would simply be accepted, and seriously discussed as a real possibility by all their peers when they mentioned it, what possible incentive would anyone have for leaving their fantasies behind in favor of reality? Can you imagine if we had thousands upon thousands of "theories" as to what aliens were like - and ALL of them had to simply be accepted by everyone else, simply because we were afraid to point out how ridiculous it is for people to be believing such things before they are evidenced? Closer to reality/home - what if someone comes to you with absolutely wild conspiracy theories? Do you simply feed into their mania, even when possible cognitive dissonance is shown to be occurring, simply because you're afraid to hit them with the hard truth? Let's say you do try to civilly talk them down out of it, and all they do is get defensive, and further entrench themselves, and say that their tin-foil-hat overlords told them that "this day would come" and that they would be persecuted and told they were wrong? What then? Almost your only hope at that point is that enough people tell them to screw off and get out of their face with their unsupportable ideas, and check-in to reality, that they finally give up. If they have compelling evidence, however? Reveal it!!!! Then the deed is done... it's over... no more ridicule... you're right! Hooray!

Also - I don't care if I am insulting someone's parents, or their grandparents, or their great-grandparents if I tell them their unsupported ideas are entirely unsupported. I couldn't care any less, to be honest. The moment I read that part of your reply, I was simply shaking my head. As if the number of people now or in our ancestry who held a belief make it correct to believe. That is argumentum ad populum - thinking of how you mentioned the "appeal to ridicule."

Here's the sad thing though. I feel there are some arguments out there for the existence of God to be discussed. Decent ones. No one's using them. No one's searching Philosophy. We ARE getting some arguments that would not stand up in formal debate from the religious people. A lot of them.

So you made a good point regardless on which side I'm on.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Let’s not forget that this, nor any other forum, is an actual cross-section of humanity. It’s a subset of political and religious junkies (yes, that includes atheists, agnostics, whatever). As such, people come here to discuss those issues, but more often just rant to various degrees. Some people have a very extreme attitude and express a large amount of antipathy against their opposites, sometimes to the point of hate. Others are more middle of the road and can see both sides, even if they lean one way or another. The extremists make the most noise and express the most emotions. The moderates are more stoic and factual.

IMO, most people are among those middle-of-the-roaders, but it’s the very small minority of extremists who get all the attention since their voices are the loudest and most disturbing. Pay them no mind, or, at a minimum, don’t believe that a handful of nutjobs are how the majority feel.

I'll keep your point in mind.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

It all boils down to whether or not a person has compelling evidential support for what they are claiming when others have conflicting ideas, the reasons for their belief and the surety with which they present the claims. If you don't like the "Elvis is still alive" proposition - because of the idea that these people are denying actual evidence and are therefore more demonstrably "in the wrong", then we can easily turn to something like claims that Bigfoot is real. This, like the proposition that "god exists" are on the same footing. There are photos supposedly of "Bigfoot" just as there are texts that were supposedly inspired by God - and that's really about all there is to go on, and neither proposition can actually be falsified. How can we prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist? What sort of evidence do we have to definitively conclude that Bigfoot does not exist? We don't have anything. But what we do have is the fact that the evidence FOR the proposition that Bigfoot exists is not compelling, is often proven to be spurious or counterfeit, eyewitness evidence has not proved consistent or reproducible to any compelling extent. This is exactly the same situation we are in with god claims. The end question is "are these people warranted to believe in god as fervently as they do, given the evidence we have in-hand?" When the answer is "no," then you open yourself up to potential ridicule by holding such a position.

And I maintain, as much as everyone is loathe to admit it, ridicule is a helpful tool in the human socializing arsenal. It is what helped knock "Flat Earth" theories to the fringes (as you hinted at). It is what keeps many people from holding EVEN MORE OUTLANDISH beliefs than they do hold. If anything anyone imagined would simply be accepted, and seriously discussed as a real possibility by all their peers when they mentioned it, what possible incentive would anyone have for leaving their fantasies behind in favor of reality? Can you imagine if we had thousands upon thousands of "theories" as to what aliens were like - and ALL of them had to simply be accepted by everyone else, simply because we were afraid to point out how ridiculous it is for people to be believing such things before they are evidenced? Closer to reality/home - what if someone comes to you with absolutely wild conspiracy theories? Do you simply feed into their mania, even when possible cognitive dissonance is shown to be occurring, simply because you're afraid to hit them with the hard truth? Let's say you do try to civilly talk them down out of it, and all they do is get defensive, and further entrench themselves, and say that their tin-foil-hat overlords told them that "this day would come" and that they would be persecuted and told they were wrong? What then? Almost your only hope at that point is that enough people tell them to screw off and get out of their face with their unsupportable ideas, and check-in to reality, that they finally give up. If they have compelling evidence, however? Reveal it!!!! Then the deed is done... it's over... no more ridicule... you're right! Hooray!

Also - I don't care if I am insulting someone's parents, or their grandparents, or their great-grandparents if I tell them their unsupported ideas are entirely unsupported. I couldn't care any less, to be honest. The moment I read that part of your reply, I was simply shaking my head. As if the number of people now or in our ancestry who held a belief make it correct to believe. That is argumentum ad populum - thinking of how you mentioned the "appeal to ridicule."

Oh really, you don't say. Oh my.

Wikipedia:Wall of text - Wikipedia
Wall of Text | Know Your Meme

 

[Road Warrior]

Lol, morality without religion as one

Since morality is relative, morality can exist without religion.

Stalin and Mao had no problem causing the deaths, if not outright murdering them, of millions of their own citizens. Why? Because by their own morals, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Killing a few people to create a better society is “moral” in their minds. The Nazis were similar; they considered it moral to murder Gypsies, gays, Soviets and the mental disabled in order to creat a better society. A “Pure” society.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Here's the sad thing though. I feel there are some arguments out there for the existence of God to be discussed. Decent ones. No one's using them. No one's searching Philosophy. We ARE getting some arguments that would not stand up in formal debate from the religious people. A lot of them.

So you made a good point regardless on which side I'm on.

Well, you have to remember, on my side I am not making the claim that "God does not exist." I am making the claim that people do not have a valid base of support for positive belief in God. So in the end, I am looking to be convinced before I will even thinking of believing. Just like I would need convinced of Bigfoot to even bother believing. Until the claim is evidenced with evidence as compelling as the other propositions I feel forced to accept, there is absolutely no reason to believe.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Oh really, you don't say. Oh my.

Wikipedia:Wall of text - Wikipedia
Wall of Text | Know Your Meme

I do say. And what an excellent rebuttal to any of the points I made. Really... great job. I am, of course, being entirely sarcastic... because you literally accomplished nothing. You didn't even try really.