Anonymous wrote:

I find atheists generally are rather defensive about their views and tend to be unable to explain their position without espousing some negative stereotype about religions or some vague attack on "organized" religion.

I think this confuses two threads of argument. Yes, atheists will of course talk about the negative impact religious belief has had throughout history and in the modern world.

The argument that most Christians put forth here are that a) religious belief is a force for good in the world; and b) religious belief is "rational".

Having made that argument, "believers" are shocked, shocked I tell you, that the people they're arguing against construct an argument that a) religious belief is *not* a force for good in the world (i.e. teaches morals, brings people together, etc...); and that b) there's no rational basis for religious belief (e.g. "Why not Poseidon?").

I mean, seriously, what on Earth did you think was going to happen when you made these two claims in a forum that has a reputation for vigorous debate? Your problem isn't with atheists, but with dialogue.

Anonymous wrote:

I find atheists generally are rather defensive about their views and tend to be unable to explain their position without espousing some negative stereotype about religions or some vague attack on "organized" religion.

I think this confuses two threads of argument. Yes, atheists will of course talk about the negative impact religious belief has had throughout history and in the modern world.

The argument that most Christians put forth here are that a) religious belief is a force for good in the world; and b) religious belief is "rational".

Having made that argument, "believers" are shocked, shocked I tell you, that the people they're arguing against construct an argument that a) religious belief is *not* a force for good in the world (i.e. teaches morals, brings people together, etc...); and that b) there's no rational basis for religious belief (e.g. "Why not Poseidon?").

I mean, seriously, what on Earth did you think was going to happen when you made these two claims in a forum that has a reputation for vigorous debate? Your problem isn't with atheists, but with dialogue.

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, one other thing: in their never-ending quest for offense, many "believers" seem to ignore the meaning of plainly written sentences. For example:

"When you frame the question [by comparing the belief in Yaweh with Poseidon or the Flying Spaghetti Monster] religious belief--at least the literal, fundamentalist kind--is pretty ridiculous."

Sorry, but you'll have to decide if comparisons with FSM are disrespectful ridicule or not. Again, we have respectful debates about all sorts of topics here. It's only the religious folk who claim the right to get offended when--in talking about religious matters--their interlocutors don't maintain the reverent tones you'd expect from a 14th century curate.

Anonymous wrote:
Not in the least. I have family members who are religious and whom I love and respect. The point is that those who have literalist religious beliefs are usually incapable of having a respectful, rational two-way dialogue about those beliefs. That's because they demand a special privilege for those beliefs that we don't expect or afford to any other type of belief. If you I say Orson Welles is the director who ever lived, and you counter that, no, it's actually Judd Aptow, I don't scream back at you that you're being insulting and disrespectful to my beliefs. If I claim the 1954 New York Giants were the greatest baseball team that ever took the field, and you tell me that's obviously not the case, I don't petulantly demand you concede I may be right. Or that there's no such thing as right or wrong, or whatever.

The problem is that for most religious folks, they hold their religious beliefs to be an unassailable truth. But unassailable truths are not something you should bring into honest, rational, adult debate if you don't want to be offended.

When atheists are offended, that offense is usually taken because of questions like "How will your children learn morals?" or "What stops you from murdering people?" Most religious posters on DCUM see nothing offensive whatsoever about such questions when asked of nonbelievers.

I find atheists generally are rather defensive about their views and tend to be unable to explain their position without espousing some negative stereotype about religions or some vague attack on "organized" religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I notice that when something negative is said about Christians, they tend to respond with some version of "how dare you insult my faith?"

In contrast when something negative is said about atheists (e.g. "atheists have no morals.") they tend to respond with facts and explanations.

Why do you think this is?

Because atheists are used to explaining themselves. We are a minority.

Christians are a majority and aren't used to being challenged. It's a bit privileged, but c'est la vie.

Calling faith "ridiculous" is "respectful"? Uh, OK.

Honestly, you seem to have "faith" (sorry) in your ability to explain with logic that's not born out by your actions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is pretty simple: there's no such thing as having a "respectful" disagreement about religion with a deeply religious person. Because they demand "respect" for every tenet of their faith. And respect seems to be synonymous with "assume it's correct."

They're incapable of hearing any deep critique of religious thinking without getting offended to the core. Case in point, when you ask the most basic and obvious question about religious belief, "Why privilege the Christian God over every other god that humans have worshipped throughout history? Why not Poseidon?" they completely ignore the implications of the question and immediately jump to outrage.

The outrage is pretty normal: When you frame it like that, religious belief--at least the literal, fundamentalist kind--is pretty ridiculous. Therefore you're disrespectful.

Your first sentence reflects a dislike and disrespect for those who are "deeply religious." If you typically begin your discussions and disagreements with this approach, I can certainly see why someone might not be able to engage in meaningful conversation with you. You're not really open to the discussion either.

Anonymous wrote:Because religious people have no use for facts and explanations? See also, climate change, evolution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I notice that when something negative is said about Christians, they tend to respond with some version of "how dare you insult my faith?"

In contrast when something negative is said about atheists (e.g. "atheists have no morals.") they tend to respond with facts and explanations.

Why do you think this is?

I challenge the premise of your question.

I find atheists generally are rather defensive about their views and tend to be unable to explain their position without espousing some negative stereotype about religions or some vague attack on "organized" religion. They also seem incapable of acknowledging the good things churches do, choosing instead to focus only on the failings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is pretty simple: there's no such thing as having a "respectful" disagreement about religion with a deeply religious person. Because they demand "respect" for every tenet of their faith. And respect seems to be synonymous with "assume it's correct."

They're incapable of hearing any deep critique of religious thinking without getting offended to the core. Case in point, when you ask the most basic and obvious question about religious belief, "Why privilege the Christian God over every other god that humans have worshipped throughout history? Why not Poseidon?" they completely ignore the implications of the question and immediately jump to outrage.

The outrage is pretty normal: When you frame it like that, religious belief--at least the literal, fundamentalist kind--is pretty ridiculous. Therefore you're disrespectful.

You must be either really insincere or really stupid. Which is it?

Explain to my why "Why not Poseidon?" is beyond the pale of reasonable discussion--perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I notice that when something negative is said about Christians, they tend to respond with some version of "how dare you insult my faith?"

In contrast when something negative is said about atheists (e.g. "atheists have no morals.") they tend to respond with facts and explanations.

Why do you think this is?

Because atheists are used to explaining themselves. We are a minority.

Christians are a majority and aren't used to being challenged. It's a bit privileged, but c'est la vie.

Anonymous wrote:I notice that when something negative is said about Christians, they tend to respond with some version of "how dare you insult my faith?"

In contrast when something negative is said about atheists (e.g. "atheists have no morals.") they tend to respond with facts and explanations.

Why do you think this is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is pretty simple: there's no such thing as having a "respectful" disagreement about religion with a deeply religious person. Because they demand "respect" for every tenet of their faith. And respect seems to be synonymous with "assume it's correct."

They're incapable of hearing any deep critique of religious thinking without getting offended to the core. Case in point, when you ask the most basic and obvious question about religious belief, "Why privilege the Christian God over every other god that humans have worshipped throughout history? Why not Poseidon?" they completely ignore the implications of the question and immediately jump to outrage.

The outrage is pretty normal: When you frame it like that, religious belief--at least the literal, fundamentalist kind--is pretty ridiculous. Therefore you're disrespectful.

You must be either really insincere or really stupid. Which is it?