Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Satan posted this on Facebook... dev

Some of those are pretty awful, like 14-year-old edgy nihilist awful. I mean #10 is just "People believe things and don't believe other things. Isn't that hilarious?" and #1 is symptomatic of really stupid ways of looking at religion that have been shutting down all conversation between atheism and religion for more than a decade.

I don't believe in Satan.

I think it boils down to fundamentalists not really having eyes for irony... (when it comes to their beliefs at least). Because that is the way truth-force beliefs are: "it is simply right because it is right, or because God said so." It doesn't matter if it's just as ridiculous as other literal beliefs, it's still "the truth."

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I think it boils down to fundamentalists not really having eyes for irony... (when it comes to their beliefs at least). Because that is the way truth-force beliefs are: "it is simply right because it is right, or because God said so." It doesn't matter if it's just as ridiculous as other literal beliefs, it's still "the truth."

That is an over simplification of what fundamentalists really believe. I was raised in a fundamentalists family, so I understand them. They believe that the world is different then we see and experience. They also believe that the holy spirit shows then the real reality, but other people, who are not filled with the holy spirit, cannot experience it. That means empirical information is of no value, and the product of deceit.

Also, making fun of them or attacking them in any way simply reinforces their beliefs, and is considered proof that they are right and you are wrong.

I grew up that way, too, bro. Who said I was making fun? I just find it interesting...

Of course there's reasons inside fundamentalist thinking that leads them to believe a certain way. I don't see anything wrong with following a particular religion. But I do think you're not doing the human spirit and mind justice if you believe things that are meant to be meaningful symbols literally.

I don't post Christ as my avatar for no reason.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I grew up that way, too, bro. Who said I was making fun? I just find it interesting...

I don't see anything wrong with following a particular religion. But I do think you're not doing the human spirit and mind justice if you believe things that are meant to be meaningful symbols literally.

Sorry, I wasn't talking about you. I was being general.

They live in a cage of their own creation, and only they have the key.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, making fun of them or attacking them in any way simply reinforces their beliefs, and is considered proof that they are right and you are wrong.

Obviously we realize that that logic doesn't follow, but you're absolutely right that it's how responses are treated many times. I had to be incredibly careful early on when I left religion, because one slip and I became some stereotype in some peoples' eyes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Some of those are pretty awful, like 14-year-old edgy nihilist awful. I mean #10 is just "People believe things and don't believe other things. Isn't that hilarious?" and #1 is symptomatic of really stupid ways of looking at religion that have been shutting down all conversation between atheism and religion for more than a decade.

Which does become somewhat complicated when, for example, atheists (and Jews, to be fair) traditionally know more about religion than their religious counterparts. It's like, try bringing up that there's a likely-causal link between intelligence and non-religiosity. There's basically no way to do it tactfully, but it's there.

I agree that the list is needlessly aggressive toward fundamentalists, but there's some truth in a lot of them (like the claims of scientific ignorance). Being so scathing actually is kinder on most Christians, because it allows them to say, "well yeah, those Christians are, but I'm not that way," because it's working with, if not a straw man, at least a caricature of most theists.

Originally posted by Digi

I agree that the list is needlessly aggressive toward fundamentalists, but there's some truth in a lot of them (like the claims of scientific ignorance). Being so scathing actually is kinder on most Christians, because it allows them to say, "well yeah, those Christians are, but I'm not that way," because it's working with, if not a straw man, at least a caricature of most theists.

That's more than likely the response many would come up with. Very good point. But the fact remains, the scenarios above are how it is taught. I know because I lived it. So it's really not a straw man at all. Now of course there's exceptions. I've witnessed those, too, but this is how "fundamentalists" not "progressives" (if you will) operate.

Originally posted by Digi
Which does become somewhat complicated when, for example, atheists (and Jews, to be fair) traditionally know more about religion than their religious counterparts.

Atheists tend to know more about religious history and holy texts. These things tell you very little about the religion. This difference of thinking shuts down discussion because it results in people talking past each other. Its the reason you end up with atheists telling religious people what they're allowed to believe. That behavior might work with fundamentalists but its the reason my mother threw out God Is Not Great despite being a very tolerant liberal Christian. Preaching to people about their own beliefs is the worst thing you can do (in fact its why you and ini are objecting to dadude in the other thread, he's telling you how to be an atheist and you don't like it).

Imagine if a creationist told you what you were allowed to believe about evolution because they read Origin of Species and decided that was all there was to know about the subject. Its absurd and its not constructive.

Originally posted by Digi
I agree that the list is needlessly aggressive toward fundamentalists, but there's some truth in a lot of them (like the claims of scientific ignorance).

Didn't that survey I posted in another thread show that the evangelicals were generally the ... well... most stupid "religious" demographic out there?

Interesting quote...

But to be fair, even though they may deny the rights of women and gays, there has also been lots of good done by missionaries in aide to the less fortunate, which is what it's all about.

It all depends on what your intent is. A Bodhisattva would use kindness to help guide the blind into the larger community.

Its not blindness. Blindness is passive. Discussion of religion is passive. These are not people who would accept his kindness and want nothing to do with the larger community.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its not blindness. Blindness is passive. Discussion of religion is passive. These are not people who would accept his kindness and want nothing to do with the larger community.

So, you think I am talking about blind people?

You can have blindness of the mind.

Note: please don't try to look that up in a medical book.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you think I am talking about blind people?

You can have blindness of the mind.

Note: please don't try to look that up in a medical book.

No (read past the first sentence, would you?) I'm pointing out that blindness is a terrible way of thinking about this. It isn't that they haven't seen the facts or other ways of thinking, it's that they fight against them. Active rather than passive.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No (read past the first sentence, would you?) I'm pointing out that blindness is a terrible way of thinking about this. It isn't that they haven't seen the facts or other ways of thinking, it's that they fight against them. Active rather than passive.

Active or passive, does not matter.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what your intent is. A Bodhisattva would use kindness to help guide the blind into the larger community.

I agree. I like that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Atheists tend to know more about religious history and holy texts. These things tell you very little about the religion. This difference of thinking shuts down discussion because it results in people talking past each other. Its the reason you end up with atheists telling religious people what they're allowed to believe. That behavior might work with fundamentalists but its the reason my mother threw out God Is Not Great despite being a very tolerant liberal Christian. Preaching to people about their own beliefs is the worst thing you can do (in fact its why you and ini are objecting to dadude in the other thread, he's telling you how to be an atheist and you don't like it).

Imagine if a creationist told you what you were allowed to believe about evolution because they read Origin of Species and decided that was all there was to know about the subject. Its absurd and its not constructive.

Well, mind you, I wasn't advocating that kind of "talking past." I was just highlighting some difficulties in bringing to light certain truths that others will find displeasing. "Atheists are on average smarter than fundamentalists" is true based on the information we have, yet I recognize and agree with you that it's a horrible approach to take when addressing the two.

Your "Origin" example is a good one, but I think there's one problem. Walking the line between presenting an opposing argument and being heavy-handed with the presentation isn't easy. Basically, if a creationist were totally ignorant of evolutionary evidence, and I was presenting it to him, at what point will it become "if you're not going to be able to counter this, you should really believe it because of all this evidence." ...in tone, at least. Obviously that would never be explicitly stated. To make it even simpler, if someone legit believed in unicorns or Santa or something, I'd have a hard time not being blunt with them. People are entitled to their beliefs, whatever they may be, but we should be smarter than that. Given what we know, I see correcting a creationist on level with correcting a kid's math homework when he multiplies wrong. And no, I'm not an evolutionary scientist, but I make damn sure I've read more on both sides of the argument than 1-2 majors texts before making the assertion. I could be wrong, that's a possibility, but anyone debating me better have the same rigor or I consider their position disingenuous.

I can't really comment on what is worst/best though. If we knew the best ways to incite reasonable discussion, there wouldn't be a divide in religious sects.

It makes a certain amount of sense that non-religious would have the most rounded religious knowledge though. Theists are, largely, accepting a single doctrine, whereas atheists are rejecting ALL of them. At least a cursory understanding of what you're rejecting seems a prerequisite for being able to call yourself against it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Didn't that survey I posted in another thread show that the evangelicals were generally the ... well... most stupid "religious" demographic out there?

You did, but the idea that non-religious are generally smarter has been corroborated with evidence for some time now. I remember reading up on this almost a decade ago.

I also did an extensive review on KMC at on point of several meta-analyses on morality and religion that found, quite unequivocally, that atheists are on average more moral than their religious counterparts. This data stretches back decades.

It's just an impossible topic to broach in the context of an actual debate, because I immediately sound condescending. The fact that it breaks down on an individual level is hard to impart, because an affront to a person's religious demographic is often an affront to them personally.

Originally posted by Digi
It makes a certain amount of sense that non-religious would have the most rounded religious knowledge though. Theists are, largely, accepting a single doctrine, whereas atheists are rejecting ALL of them. At least a cursory understanding of what you're rejecting seems a prerequisite for being able to call yourself against it.

I find the knowledge of those rejecting "all of it" to be lacking, as well. Rife with ignorance, myths, and long-since destroyed arguments plague the common atheist/anti-theist. It is only at the academic level do we start to see knowledge so dense and delicious as to make things interesting.

It is quite true, as all knowledge can be seen as relative and subjective, that the common atheist may actually know more, academically, about more religions than one deciding upon a religion as a youngster. But is such a comparison an "apples to apples" comparison? I do not think so. The proper comparison would be one to a person that had searched through various religions to 'find' what they were looking for. Those two would be closer to equivalent. You would find the searcher of religions to be more versed in religions than the one rejecting it, generally. This is my opinion and observation, of course.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I find the knowledge of those rejecting "all of it" to be lacking, as well. Rife with ignorance, myths, and long-since destroyed arguments plague the common atheist/anti-theist. It is only at the academic level do we start to see knowledge so dense and delicious as to make things interesting.

It is quite true, as all knowledge can be seen as relative and subjective, that the common atheist may actually know more, academically, about more religions than one deciding upon a religion as a youngster. But is such a comparison an "apples to apples" comparison? I do not think so. The proper comparison would be one to a person that had searched through various religions to 'find' what they were looking for. Those two would be closer to equivalent. You would find the searcher of religions to be more versed in religions than the one rejecting it, generally. This is my opinion and observation, of course.

But it's a similar perusal of various religions. Atheists just reach a different conclusion. Someone who leaves Christianity, and that's it, is probably not going to identify as an atheist. The atheists will be those who reject all religions, which requires at least a cursory understanding of it.

You're right that the one searching through everything to "find" something is probably, on average, going to know more about religions. But the comparison here is between atheists and theists on average, not atheists vs. the statistical margins of theists that have researched numerous religions. It's just selective data comparison at that point.

You're also assuming that someone who becomes an atheist is looking into a religion solely to be able to reject it. I would see a "searcher A" and "searcher B" as looking into it in roughly equal amounts...one just happens to reach a different conclusion at the end.

But my point goes beyond that to general intelligence, not just specific to religious knowledge. Higher general intelligence in non-religious actually has greater support in terms of volume of credible evidence. You're also very aware of the data for atheist/Jewish religious knowledge. So in either case, there's credible evidence to refer to.

Perhaps the greatest reason why I don't buy into anything religious and why I'm not convinced by any of it is the fact that (with some rare exceptions) religious belief systems don't contain actual inductive or abductive arguments as to why any of it is true and rely on the charisma of the founder(s) to start up and subsequent societal indoctrination to keep going.

At least Descartes tried to prove God's existence, he didn't just write 'God exists' and expect people to believe him.

Though on Descartes, it seems to me like everything that follows Cogito Ergo Sum is pretty weak and by the time he gets to the "God is real and good, ergo no evil demon" he's just grasping at straws.