No matter how open-minded...

[Piorn]

I don't understand when people outright refuse to try something they have never heard of. It's both insulting and narrow-minded.
Whenever someone mentions anything I haven't heard of, I listen to them, do some research and then decide.

 

[70R4N]

It is illogical for one to assert belief in something when there is no evidence backing up said belief. It is not illogical to be skeptical of a claim brought forth which has no evidence to back it up. In fact, disbelief is the default position.

Atheism is also a position, the position that divinity cannot exist. This claim has the same amount of evidence as that of religion, as such, the default position is not disbelief but indecision.

Atheism says that there is no point in believing in something that has no evidence to support it. Atheism does not say that god definitely 100% with absolute certainty does not exist.

 

[Sight Unseen]

The problem with this argument is that atheists also make an assertion, the assertion that no god/goddess/etc. could exist. They give no proof other than that there is no proof. The belief in spiritual beings has existed for thousands of years, it is a paradigm that atheists wish to diverge from, yet they have no evidence against it. The faithful argue on a philosophical level because, by definition, God etc. cannot be known or observed physically. Thus the lack of physical evidence is meaningless.

For one, not all religions hold that their spiritual being is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. There are also religions (Ancient Greek, for example) that claim that their gods are represented in nature. Regardless, the requirement of a natural proof in order to consider the possibility of a divine being that cannot be observed in nature is simply contradictory. I do not claim that they should believe in a divine being because it is possible but I don't understand the logic in denying it based on a lack of evidence that should not exist.

I don't think I was discussing something like this in my original post but what do you mean by "The discussion can't even agree on the same topic"? Also, The denial of scientific discovery usually comes from a dogmatic, literal reading of sacred texts, for example, assuming that the story of Adam and Eve should be seen as historical fact rather than as an allegory. Without looking at the texts in such a literal way, one can better reconcile religion and modern science. Also, the idea that science can find any kind of fact, that can be proven without any doubt is dogmatic in itself. While future developments may prove a "natural fact" to be incorrect, science holds it as absolute fact that cannot be disputed.

I never really said that atheists are without morals. All I meant to say was that atheists have no reason to be think morally, considering that they believe that we just rot in a hole when we die, regardless of what we do in life. While pushing ones beliefs on others is indeed wrong, there are some times when you have to. Cannibals, serial killers, etc. often believe that what they are doing is right. I suppose it's pushing our moral beliefs on others if we arrest criminals?

Wow there's lots to counter in this post. I will focus on the statements that I bolded in your text.

1. There are two primary stances on atheism. There are the so called "strong" atheists, which do posit that it would be impossible for a god or supreme being to exist. And then there are also the so called "weak atheists" or agnostic atheists which simply lack a belief that a God exists. They have not been given sufficient evidence that would indicate that such a god exists, and therefore they stick to the default position one should always take when given spectacular claims without proof: lack of belief. the majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, including myself. I don't state outright that a god does not exist, I have just not been given sufficient evidence to prove to me that one does. If today someone gave me absolute irrefutable proof that their god existed then I would convert to their religion. That said, I am 99% certain that the God of the Christian bible does not exist, because that book is so contradictory that it's logically impossible for this God to exist.

2. As a scientist and rational human being, I "believe", for lack of a better word, that any phenomena that occurs in the natural world can be explained through natural means. Over the last few centuries, science has found natural explanations for nearly every single phenomena that previously was only explained by religion. Religion really just has no more ground to stand on anymore. If your God exists, then what is he doing?? He's not causing any miracles, he's not doing anything that couldn't already be explained by natural laws of the universe, he's not answering prayers or helping the sick get better, he's not healing amputees. What is your God doing, and why should I believe in him if there is not a shred of evidence that he's making any impact on the natural world? I'm not even asking to SEE your god, just any sign that he may actually be making changes to the world. I have not been given any evidence of any kind that shows that he is doing anything, if he exists, so I choose not to believe that he exists. It's simple, really.

3. On using the bible as allegory. This is a slippery slope you're going down. The Bible is supposed to be the perfect and unaltered word of God, and it is supposed to be infallible and completely true, correct? So then why are you taking bits of the Bible as allegory, and others as literal truth, when there is no way to infer which ones are true and which are "just pretend". Was Jesus an allegory? The 10 commandments? Any story within the bible could be seen as an allegory, and yet religious people tend to assume that some of them are true, historical events, and others are just made up to make a point. They do this because some of the stories are so batshit crazy that they cannot justify it to others or themselves as truth, so they assume it was made up. But there is no basis within the bible that would indicate which stories are true or not, they are all presented as absolutely true and infallible. Is the quote saying that disobedient children should be stoned to death just an allegory? Is the one that says that a father has a right to sell his daughter into slavery one? Christians neglect and explain away all the uncomfortable parts of their religion, but they wholly accept the warm fuzzy parts as literal truth, even though they are just as believable as the parts they rationalize away.

4. If a new discovery proves a scientific theory "wrong" then the theory is adapted to accomodate the new evidence. That's kind of how science works... Science doesnt just ignore new evidence and stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!" That's religion's job.

5. Atheists absolutely have reasons to act morally. Morality is NOT divinely constructed. Morals are built based on social norms. Humans are social animals. We need each other to survive and to be happy. Sure, as an atheist there's no incentive for me beyond this life to be a good boy so that I get my present in heaven. But there is absolutely incentive for me to behave in order to get the most out of the life that I do have. If I went around murdering and raping random people, I'd be thrown in jail or killed for it, which is bad for me living happily. Also I am a human being, I care for other people and their wellbeing, I want to help them and I want everyone to be happy as much as possible. Why would I want to harm another person for no reason? I am not being nice as a way to get to heaven, I'm being nice because in a small way, it makes the world a better place to live in, and makes other people, and myself happier. And since we all have to live together, that's a good thing.

 

[Unesh52]

It's more of a fact that the mere possibility of religion is far more viable as a method for making decisions than an abstract sense of societal guilt which is usually derived from religious beliefs anyway. The only way to truly form any sort of grounded morality is to create an artificial one, such as Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. Even in that sense, it only truly works if everyone follows it. Murder is bad for the sake of being bad is not a justifiable argument, but murder as a sin defined by a higher being is a point of reference which can always be relied upon. To believe in God and to disbelieve him is an argument which I believe is swayed far more to the latter (as to the reason of my agnosticism) but it doesn't actually legitimise any of my actions. With this in mind, believing in a religion can be logical for practical reasons.

An argument like this:

The religious, I dont get how people can overlook the barbarity and outmoded moral concepts thats rife throughout religion. I dont get how these people can then say they hold the moral high ground, that as an atheist Im spiritually dead and morally suspect.
If Im totally honest it makes me very angry.

doesn't make sense to me at all. The morality isn't barbaric in its practices without a comparison and there simply isn't any. Religion is followed because of many reasons such as what I've stated or for any other number of reasons, such as peace of mind with conformity, and to "not be able to comprehend why people would follow a religion," just doesn't make sense. I could see why people might see following a religion through a logical process is a bit of a stretch, but there's arguments on both sides for that which make perfect sense. Religion provides answers to the unknown and as long as there's something which we don't know, there'll always be a reason for it.

So what I hear you saying is that no ethical theory is correct, but a person who believes in Divine Command theory has the "moral high ground" over a person espousing Kantian theory (or some other non-religiously based ethical theory). There's a tension here. Kantian theory is not based on "an abstract sense of societal guilt," and it does not require that everyone follow it for one person to follow it. The same can be said of Contractarianism and Utilitarianism. I fail to see how Divine Command theory is better in any way, if we assume they're all wrong.

The other part I was arguing against was your statement that "we can't actually know any facts about the universe." That's what I was responding to will all that business about Tim Minchin and talking to your cat. You don't seem to have made any comment about that at all here. So would you please respond to that?

Now, I understand you discontent with that argument you quoted, but I want you to see how that only makes sense if you believe there are no absolute moral standards. Then a religious belief that it's wrong to get a life-saving blood transfusion for your son is a-ok, because it's neither right nor wrong for that child to die an easily preventable death. However, most people do not believe that. Most people have an idea or two about what constitutes a good action as opposed to a bad one, and they further believe that most other people share some very similar core beliefs. For instance, one of their core beliefs might be that preserving innocent lives where it is feasible is good, and they would probably think that other people believe that too. Thus, it is very confusing when they hear a story about a Jehovah's Witness parent letting her kid die because they won't get them a blood transfusion. The reason they give for their action is based on a highly dubious objective assertion - that God exists and he says not to give blood transfusions. That's the part that's confusing - why would someone go out of their way to accept a baseless assertion when the most significant result of that assertion is that your kid has to die?

well, in the area of objective fact i might try to correct you.

Ah, but this is my point. Is the existence of God not an objective question? Even if you were an agnostic (or a "weak" atheist) and thought you could never know what it is, certainly you would think there's a fact of the matter. And since you seem to be of the opinion that God does not exist, then I'd assume you think you have good reasons to believe that. So if that's all true, then someone who believes in God is wrong in the exact same way that they would be wrong to think that sin(pi/2) is 0. It would be a simple matter of showing them their error, then.

...Unless there's more to this God thing?

 

[Mark Hardigan]

People who are motivated by fearmongers and are willing to give up various rights just for fake safety, i.e. people who are gung-ho for gun control, or thought the Patriot Act was a good idea, etc.

 

[370999]

I love how this thread has gone from what people can't comprehend to them talking about what they dislike.Mind you the title does make it sound more like tolerance then understanding.

If I had to pick one thing it would be this, hatedoms about films/musicians. I get hate, it's fun, it's theurputic to diss that thing you hate. But to actually keep on with it and spend so mcuh time I don't get. Fro me it's a coping mechanism, not somethign good in of itself.

 

[hawkeye52]

...you try to be, there's always that one thing you can't wrap your head around.

For me, it's people who aren't moved by music, people who are fine with listening to the radio or club music because it's easy to dance to or it's simple, people who don't go looking for music that inspires them or brings out all manner of emotion/feeling to the surface (be it joy, excitement, anger, passion etc). These are the things I can't accept/understand, no matter how wide I open my mind.

So what's your one thing that you can't grasp?

Well you wouldn't understand me then because I don't listen to any music unless it has a direct link with something else that im interested in like gaming (e.g. miracle of sound).

Strangely enough though I played flute up until grade 4 and I reckon with a bit of practice I could easily play grade 5 songs

 

[TheDooD]

I don't understand when people outright refuse to try something they have never heard of. It's both insulting and narrow-minded.
Whenever someone mentions anything I haven't heard of, I listen to them, do some research and then decide.

Yet a simple "I don't feel like it" should be enough. I'm not gonna waste my time researching something I never really wanted to do in the first place. When it comes down to trying new foods you never heard off before it's a better off not trying it then trying it and getting sick. Also you gotta be considerate that some people just don't like being forced to do something they haven't done before.

 

[repeating integers]

A couple of years ago, a father in Iraq killed his 17-year old daughter for allegedly falling in love with a British soldier. He deducted this from seeing her talk to him.

He ran up to her and brutally beat, strangled and stabbed her. 2 of her brothers joined in. They dumped her body in a hole and spat on it.

He was released from prison after spending an inordinately brief time there. The policemen standing guard spent a lot of time congratulating him on what he had done.

He shows no remorse. He thinks his daughter was a monster and deserved to die, and would like to pretend she never existed. He has also threatened to kill his two sons should they display any homosexual traits. He beat up his wife when he found out she was leaving him over this. He believes that all this is morally right and justified.

I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever understand this, no matter how much I open my mind.

"I used to keep an open mind, but my brains kept falling out." - Steven Wright

 

[orangeban]

People who think fighting is important, who ridicule people for not having muscles or sucking at fighting. What the heck does it matter in this civilized society of ours?

 

[Sight Unseen]

A couple of years ago, a father in Iraq killed his 17-year old daughter for allegedly falling in love with a British soldier. He deducted this from seeing her talk to him.

He ran up to her and brutally beat, strangled and stabbed her. 2 of her brothers joined in. They dumped her body in a hole and spat on it.

He was released from prison after spending an inordinately brief time there. The policemen standing guard spent a lot of time congratulating him on what he had done.

He shows no remorse. He thinks his daughter was a monster and deserved to die, and would like to pretend she never existed. He has also threatened to kill his two sons should they display any homosexual traits. He beat up his wife when he found out she was leaving him over this. He believes that all this is morally right and justified.

I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever understand this, no matter how much I open my mind.

"I used to keep an open mind, but my brains kept falling out." - Steven Wright

This is something that I hadn't thought of, but I absolutely agree with you here. Honour killings, and well, pretty much every extremist muslim activity, is something I will never understand.

 

[cgaWolf]

The problem with this argument is that atheists also make an assertion, the assertion that no god/goddess/etc. could exist. They give no proof other than that there is no proof. The belief in spiritual beings has existed for thousands of years, it is a paradigm that atheists wish to diverge from, yet they have no evidence against it. The faithful argue on a philosophical level because, by definition, God etc. cannot be known or observed physically. Thus the lack of physical evidence is meaningless.

Ofc lack of physical evidence is meaningless - that's why i said the discussion diverges into two different things, because one side still requires it. From my position, the lack of physical evidence isn't a problem as we're talking about a supernatural being, however i do question whether the proposition that a god exists solves anything or offers anything - and i find that it really doesn't.

For one, not all religions hold that their spiritual being is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. There are also religions (Ancient Greek, for example) that claim that their gods are represented in nature. Regardless, the requirement of a natural proof in order to consider the possibility of a divine being that cannot be observed in nature is simply contradictory. I do not claim that they should believe in a divine being because it is possible but I don't understand the logic in denying it based on a lack of evidence that should not exist.

The example of the god i took was based of the christian one, so whether a god is capricious or jealous wouldn't change his existence, it would merely make worshipping him questionable, that's a wholly different discussion however.
The requirement of natural proof of a supernatural being is only contradictory at first glance. To a materialist, if that supernatural being has no effect on the natural world, his existence or non-existence becomes a moot question, but if he has an effect on the natural world, then there should be signs of that. The lack of natural evidence therefore is valid grounds on which to deny any effect on the natural world, and thus deny importance and/or existence.
It doesn't prove non-existence ofc, it merely proves disinterest or inability to interact with the natural world; at which point the question 'why should i follow an arbitrary set of rules for no other reason than the existence of a being that has no effect no our world' becomes valid.

I don't think I was discussing something like this in my original post but what do you mean by "The discussion can't even agree on the same topic"? Also, The denial of scientific discovery usually comes from a dogmatic, literal reading of sacred texts, for example, assuming that the story of Adam and Eve should be seen as historical fact rather than as an allegory. Without looking at the texts in such a literal way, one can better reconcile religion and modern science. Also, the idea that science can find any kind of fact, that can be proven without any doubt is dogmatic in itself. While future developments may prove a "natural fact" to be incorrect, science holds it as absolute fact that cannot be disputed.

I have 0 problems with people reconciling their faith with science -- that's why i contend debaters are often discussing 2 different issues, and merely posit that in face of proof to the contrary, science needs to prevail over faith in the field of science. That said, fans of the atheist side of the argument, especially those with a shaky understanding of science, need to understand that science doesn't explain the "why" of things, just the "how".
Evolution is a fact, evolution through random mutation & natural selection our best current model to explain that, and whoever denies that is a moron. Whether there is a god behind that pulling the strings, is not a question science is set up to answer; otoh if you posit the existence of such a being, that throws up a ton of other questions faithful so far haven't been able to answer in a satisfactory manner.
Lastly, science knows it cannot find the truth of any given unknown fact - whoever says that has little understanding of science: When we come up with a new model to explain observation X in reality, that's simply a new model, it doesn't mean the last one was necessarily wrong, it simply means this one is better, or farther in scope. Alternatively, two concurrent models can exist at the same time, because depending on which scale we look at things, one might be more practical than the other.

Science can prove some things, science can disprove some things; but science can also prove the unprovability, or disprove the provability. Math is quite a good example of that. The position that science can & eventually will find and explain everything is already proven wrong by science itself.
That said however "facts" and "proof" in science are very different things, depending on whether someone uses the words colloquially, or in the scientific sense. Gravitation is a fact; our theories about it aren't - that's where people untrained in scientific thinking often take the wrong turn. Just because gravitation is a fact doesn't mean our theories about it are. That's an error in arguing however, not an error of science.

I never really said that atheists are without morals. All I meant to say was that atheists have no reason to be think morally, considering that they believe that we just rot in a hole when we die, regardless of what we do in life. While pushing ones beliefs on others is indeed wrong, there are some times when you have to. Cannibals, serial killers, etc. often believe that what they are doing is right. I suppose it's pushing our moral beliefs on others if we arrest criminals?

That's just the point i was criticizing however. The argument that because i believe i'll rot after my death & will be eaten by worms - a proposition i consider to be true - does not automatically lead to having no reason to think and act morally, nor to amoral actions.
The existence of a supreme arbiter and reward/penalty after life is not necessary for me to behave in a decent way.
The reasons to act morally can be drawn from any number of fields, philosophy, psychology, social evolution, neurology, or even evolution through natural selection: Altruism is an advantageous tactic for a species of pack animals and cursorial hunters as we are.


The pretention that we need a god to behave in a moral way is ... pretentious at best (also, my english teacher is now turning in her grave ). Lack of a divine reason to act moral does not mean lack of reason to act moral - the proposition that there is a moral framework only through the existence of a supreme being is a) wrong, and b) catastrophic.


As to the discussion of punishing cannibals, serial killers, etc.. for transgression, that hasn't necessarily much to do with pushing our moral beliefs unto them, but protecting our society. It's a wholly different discussion - the morals of law vs. justice.

Many religions do not believe that their religion is the "One Truth" (Hinduism, among others). Those that do such things are usually either not going by the actual religious teachings ("thou shalt not kill", for example) or extremists who should not represent the rest of the community. That some of the religious people believe that they are right has no bearing on the argument of whether divinity exists.

I concede that bigotted or violent extremists don't represent the majority of the faithful, and i concede that the existence of someone like that doesn't disprove the existence of god.


It merely makes me wonder how, considering the fact that faith was a necessary requirement for evil actions of some, others who share their faith can hold the opinion that it is a good thing, and why they refuse to divorce themselves from factions who demonstrably aren't following the tenets of leading a good and peaceful life.


That not all religions consider themselves to be the One Truth is a given, but the reality is that many do. My Criticism is for those evangelical ones - a word i quite clearly stated in my previous post. Religious people who do not act in an evangelical way are obviously exempt.
But the inbuilt evangelism is were those religions become annoying and or dangerous - because they assert that they are the One Truth, and they need to convert others - conversionism is the very key principle of evangelism, though hardly exclusive to christian religions. That very behavior is why they go out & destroy other peoples lives, and not only people they do not know, but also people who are their (unbelieving) friends, to save their souls.
They interfere into others lives, destroy whole cultures, antagonize people who believe different than they do, based simply on the very notions that their god is the one true god, their faith is the one true faith, and that souls need saving.


Is it so far fetched that before i tolerate this, proof of existence or relevance be brought first?

As I said previously, many religions do not believe this and with those that do, most do not act on it, besides extremists and the ignorant and, as I said, it has no meaning in the argument atheists are posing.

There may be some religions that do not act on it, but many aggressively do, and cause harm to hundreds of millions. Proof of necessity remains owed.


Don't understand me wrong: i do not assert that every faithful is an evil being, not at all. I'm simply saying that if, through your faith, you decide to meddle into someone elses affairs, the burden of proof to justify this remains on you.


Atheists aren't going out there & saying condoms are bad because their faith forbids them.
Atheists aren't treating women as second rate human beings because their faith tells them so.
Atheists don't discriminate based on their faith.
etc..


Nothing of what i wrote disproves the existence of god. But if you do anything that adversely affects others because of your faith, you better damn well be able to prove the existence of god to justify this. And thus my central argument:


The burden of proof remains with the believers, not the atheists.


If your faith makes you do good things, keeps you from doing bad things, and you don't go out of your way to interfere with other people's lives - then we don't have a problem. I may contend that all this would be possible without faith, but if the process and end result are fine, it's fairly pointless arguing the reason behind it. There are many faithful who act in such a way - those, i have no problem with, and try not to annoy with my unreligiousness

 

[ImperialSunlight]

Actually, atheists doesn't make the assertion that god/goddess/whatever couldn't exist. We simply make the assertion that there's nothing to support it's existence and thus we don't believe in it. We don't state as fact that there is no god. We just point out how unlikely it is, given the complete and utter lack of any supporting evidence or even indication.

A lack of belief in religion but acknowledgement of the possibility of it's truth, however unlikely, falls under agnosticism, does it not?

You just made a claim of fact, by the way. "God cannot be known or observed physically." First off, the Bible itself proves otherwise by manifesting God in any number of ways, including him interacting directly with the world through 'miracles'. If even one of these can be proven to come from any kind of divine source, observed in modern day and unexplained by science, we can start talking about there being indications. If you still think your statement holds validity... back it up with something.

I did not specifically mean the Christian God in this case. I admit, however, that I was making a bit of a generalization here. Some religions do believe this, even some Christians. Soren Kierkegaard saw God as a concept that cannot be understood through physical evidence, unmeasurable and only experienced through feeling. In addition, most stories in the Bible can be seen as allegory, rather than literal depictions of what God has done. In discussion of the possibility of God, it is sensible to believe that if one exists, he cannot be observed by humanity, for it is not possible currently. While this may not be true, there is no evidence against a God that cannot be proven objectively because such a God cannot be proven objectively. I should note that by "observed", I mean in an objective, scientific fashion, that is indisputable to other people. Prophets such as Jesus did not have the ability to prove the existence of God to others because they had no ability to see God objectively.

The logic is perfectly simple: There is no indication whatsoever that it exists. Thus, there's absolutely no reason to believe in its existence. This isn't denial of its existence, but acknowledgment of it being highly unlikely and that it can't be considered a fact. I still want to know how you back up the claim that divine beings can't be observed in nature? Sure, there hasn't been one observed in nature, but this indicates its absence, not any particular property of its existence.

I don't want you to believe in its existence. It is perfectly logical to not believe while acknowledging the possibility of divinity existing, however unlikely it may seem to you but that is not atheism, it is agnosticism. Atheists believe that there is no divinity, for whatever reason they do, usually for lack of evidence. Some atheists claim that atheism is the lack of belief in a particular religion, believing it to be unlikely that the religions are true but this overlaps strongly with agnosticism.

Also, the acknowledgement that the existence of divinity cannot be considered a "fact" but is still possible implies that a lack of divinity is just as unprovable, as there is still a chance of divinity existing. This belief in the unprovability of divinity and the lack thereof is very much analogous to agnosticism rather than atheism.

Have no reason to think morally? Odd, here I thought I was a paramedic and a rather nice person to my social circle. I certainly do have a reason to think morally and I have absolutely no need for some ridiculous notion of an afterlife to spur me towards moral actions. I act in a moral and kind fashion to the society around me because this will improve both the society itself and my own position in it. I work towards a better tomorrow because when I am gone, others will live in my place. Empathy, morals and so on have absolutely no need for fairy tales to perpetuate themselves. Your claims that we have no reason to think morally is rather telling of your inability to consider these things without the threat of some punishment beyond death. Very sad.

The lack of a reason to think morally does not mean that all atheists lack morality, they still follow the moral ideas that were taught to them by society. Most of these ideas, in western society, developed from Christianity (for instance, charity). The fact that you are a moral person has no bearing on whether atheists have a reason to be moral. Then again, your "moral" behaviour apparently is due to your wish to improve your position in society and the society itself, which is selfish, not to mention pointless as we all die in the end anyway. Those who will live in your place are irrelevant also because they will die. No one will live a moral life unless they believe in a Moral law or if living a moral life will benefit them somehow.

As for arresting criminals and so on, these are concepts that fit just as much within atheism as any religious train of thought.

The difference is that, if there is no Moral law that exists beyond our world, which cannot exist without an immortal lawgiver of some kind, then all morality is subjective, so punishing criminals is an attempt to push our subjective moral beliefs upon them. Because the justice system believes in a true Moral law, they attempt to refine the justice system to be closer to it, and therefore more just.

Oh but it does, because all of them can't be right. Odd isn't it, that there's so many different claims of 'The One Truth' if there's just one truth? You'd think the 'right' one would have been dominant somehow. The thing is, whether or not religions believe they are 'the one truth' or whether or not the harm comes from extremists... it's all rooted in religion and was the primary motivator for whichever atrocity one points at at the time. Remove one part of that equation and a hundred excuses for atrocities disappear.

Hinduism sees different religions as differing ways of reaching divinity and claims that they are all right. In relation to your "remove one part" idea, if you had a class of schoolchildren who were on a field trip and one student, out of around a hundred does something that is obviously dangerous and wrong, would you take the entire class back from the trip? If they hadn't gone on the trip, the child wouldn't have done it. Does that justify removing all 99 other students' right to go on a trip? Obviously not. If you had a scientist who had a theory that could, if correct, be extraordinary, but in his study of the theory, he goes to far with an experiment and someone gets hurt. Does this cause the theory to be any less viable? No. The cruelty of some members of religions does not factor into whether religion is correct or not, nor should it cause other members of the religion to be criticised for their belief.

 

[Senor Coolguy]

Close-minded people are my problem. I just don't get why my being non-christian or democrat suddenly means that I'm going to h*** or that I'm evil and eat puppies for breakfast.

Welcome to America, land of the paranoid conservative. But if you think it's bad being a non-Christian, try being an Atheist like me.

To tell the truth, I am as well, but I tend not to reveal it too often because the second greatest problem I have with open-mindedness is people who just don't understand that there are people out there who are non-religious that DON'T want to be converted!

 

[sharks9]

Atheism doesn't make sense to me at all. I don't think there's any way that the universe was just created at random and that everything's just the result of chance. Seems silly to me.

 

[tirone231]

For me, it's people who either attack or defend religion without having done any study of the history of said religion to understand its origins, and why it was so important at conception. On the same note, people who decide to attack the faith, rather than the morons causing the anger in the first place. This extends to conservative Christians attacking Islam, and Atheists attacking Christianity. In the words of someone far cooler than I, "Hate the players, not the game!"

 

[Mechanical Cat Fish]

The thing I can't grasp is how people are moved by music without a context. Isn't that ironic?

 

[l3o2828]

Incest is the only thing i can think that people practice without remorse that i find completly wrong.
oh and the pony fandom.

 

[Burningsok]

Religion. I can't wrap my head around willful delusions like that. Yes, I know it's not the popular stance to take, nor politically correct, but I just can't look at any of the religions I know and figure out why people believe in it. It's got the same factual weight as santa claus and makes about as much sense from any logical perspective and yet these religions are not only widespread beliefs but it's political and at times even social suicide to speak against them.

It's mindboggling to me. There's no scientifically backed indication of any of it having even a nugget of truth to it and yet it's 'narrowminded' or 'hateful' to point out the ridiculousness of it all.

I'll of course respect anyone's right to believe in these things, but the most aneurysm inducing part of it all is that there's no respect given to those who believe religion holds about as much water as a sieve.

The religious, I dont get how people can overlook the barbarity and outmoded moral concepts thats rife throughout religion. I dont get how these people can then say they hold the moral high ground, that as an atheist Im spiritually dead and morally suspect.
If Im totally honest it makes me very angry.

Seems to me that you have only met one kind of religious person.

Mine would be those who refuse to have an open mind or consider others at any point. Street Preachers are amongst the worst, they turn up and try to convert as many as possible and condemn those who don't believe. As a Christian, it makes me feel quite embarassed and ashamed that my beliefs are even similar to their own. But it's also the ignorant that I can't understand, surely it isn't THAT hard to look from another's point of view once in a blue moon?

Agreed! it annoys me when people like that decide to force there religion onto others for whatever reason. It's a belief!! They should stop throwing it at people like it's a fact. Let people seek religion out for themselves. Better, start proving to people the positive things that religious people can do and bring like charity raising awareness on some sickness. There are a lot of good religious people out there. Hell I'm kinda one of them, very, VERY casual mind you. But still, it pisses me off when I get lumped in with those arrogant zealots. This goes for atheists as well. Stop trying to convince people God doesn't exist. You're just doing the same thing the religious nut jobs do, trying to change someone's beliefs.

 

[breadsammich]

The religious, I dont get how people can overlook the barbarity and outmoded moral concepts thats rife throughout religion. I dont get how these people can then say they hold the moral high ground, that as an atheist Im spiritually dead and morally suspect.
If Im totally honest it makes me very angry.

This, so much this.

Every time I poke a huge whole in how BS a religion is (I don't actively do this btw) people I know just shrug and say "that's what I believe".

Problem is, religion is inherently irrational. You cannot say it's BS objectively, because there's nothing to prove or disprove it. Science is the complete opposite--a rational, evidence and observation based discipline.

Just a note: I don't mean "rational" in the sense of "correct". I mean that Religion is accepting something for which there is no concrete scientific evidence on faith alone, while science cannot work that way.