To argue, or not to argue

[crispybits]

Frstly, this thread is not about proving God exists, or debating evolution, or any of that stuff we already have a thousand threads for. Also this is not a thread about legality (free speech laws are pretty clear already on the limits of what is acceptable), but about morality.

It comes up fairly often in debate that one atheist (that is, someone who lacks belief in thesitic claims) will tell another atheist "whatever man, they aint hurting anyone, live and let live". OK that's paraphrased a bit but the core of the argument is that we shouldn't waste our time as we aren't going to change a religious person's mind, especially over the internet.

We also have theists who claim that challenging some things is basically offensive. Examples of this could be the Danish cartoonists drawing Mohammed and causing massive amounts of protests, or the Fox News "War on Christmas" segments that they go back to year after year.

So the question here is "should religious beliefs be in some way protected from criticism / argument / debate?"

And to a lesser extent, as reflected by the poll options, is if we should be criticising religious beliefs should we only do that in response to certain triggers, or should we be actively challenging religious beliefs even when they are not being actively expressed? Should an atheist start the conversation from a blank slate without any provocation?

[mrswdk]

I don't believe religious beliefs should be given any special protection, but I also don't believe it is ever really necessary to challenge someone's religious beliefs in the first place. If someone gets in your face trying to convert you then just tell them 'no thanks'. If someone tries to legislate their religious beliefs then just tell them they aren't allowed to do that. No need to start trying to tear their world view apart.

I'm boycotting your poll because I'm agnostic and your narrow range of options marginalizes me.

[BigBallinStalin]

So the question here is "should religious beliefs be in some way protected from criticism / argument / debate?"

And to a lesser extent, as reflected by the poll options, is if we should be criticising religious beliefs should we only do that in response to certain triggers, or should we be actively challenging religious beliefs even when they are not being actively expressed? Should an atheist start the conversation from a blank slate without any provocation?

1. Depends on the costs. Can't have a one-size-fits-all answer to this. E.g. being a dick on the internet is easier than being a dick to someone in the RL. Challenging your boss's deeply held beliefs on whatever might not be a good idea--compared to challenging your friend's beliefs on whatever.

2. Depends on your mood. This doesn't really need to be something set in stone.

Also, people with religious beliefs tend to 'go through the motions' more than actually believing the text. They tend to not think that saying "bless you" after someone sneezes is really going to make a difference. That phrase is more about being polite (or being perceived as polite) in public. Same thing for showing up to church. They're not religious zealots, but just people who are in it for the club goods. They may say they aren't, but if the benefits were zero, none of them would go.

So, religious beliefs really aren't a problem. You've got those stupid atheist alarmists who think otherwise, but they're being alarmist and have shoddy evidence (if any), so I'd ignore them. I bring this up because some think having religious beliefs are a big deal and need to be challenged, but they really don't need to be continually challenged by every single atheist (division of labor ftw).

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, one issue that's clear:

religious beliefs shouldn't be used as any defense for a public policy. That's just insane.

(however, it may make sense in other areas--e.g. Afghanistan before the US invaded. Sure, it sucks to live under the Taliban, but it's not like democratic institutions can be transferred and made sustainable. That takes awhile and must be done from within. Imposing change externally gives you fucked up institutions and conflict like the ongoing crap today).

[universalchiro]

1 John 4:1-3 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God..."

Therefore, test, debate, inquire, but do so cordially. Be kind, gentle, peaceful, humble, joyfully seeking truth rather than pushing agenda. Too often, especially here where people are overly brazen, people do not debate, they storm into a thread and make statements that are rude and incindiary. Those people are not debating to seek truth.

Summary: Yes, discuss, test, question, seek truth and expose falshoods. Religion has always concerned me and I stay away from religion, but enjoy a peaceful personal relationship with the Creator of the universe.

(I avoid religion so I didn't vote)

[KoolBak]

Yeah, not bullets for agnosticism.....can't vote.

This is essentially about if you're a big enough egomaniac to only care about yourself and insecure enough that you HAVE to spout your views in any venue no matter what. I hate that. Politics, religion, gun views, child rearing....it's all the same; be comfortable with your own views and give others the same courtesy....I detest arguing.....but I've been married for 25 years, so.....

And to clarify, I know many of you ENJOY the ....."discussion"....go for it if both sides are in.....I simply point to those of us, for example, constantly quoting scriptures in relation to real life wearing texas sized blinders....it gets SO old.....

[notyou2]

????

[danfrank666]

religious beliefs shouldn't be used as any defense for a public policy. That's just insane.

Please elaborate .

[danfrank666]

What conflicts would be relevant if religion was eliminated ? Clearly, the world would be a more peaceful place, right ? Or is it just human nature to engage for superiority.

[Dukasaur]

Jesusfreaks used to accost me on the subway, saying "Did you know I've accepted Jesus Christ as my personal lord and saviour!"

My stock response was, "I can dig it! I've accepted Timothy Leary as my personal lord and saviour!"


They always looked a bit puzzled after that, and whatever literature they were selling shrivelled up in their hand.
[/humorous anecdote]


Okay, @crispybits and the original question. Religion provides comfort and support to a lot of people in their darkest hours. The idea that some superior consciousness has his hands on our shoulder while we struggle through turbulent times may seem ridiculous to those of us who don't have this delusion, but that's why we're more likely to end up on Prozac. When you meet those who are fortunate enough to have the delusion, let them keep it. It's a statistically verifiable fact that people of strong religious faith are more likely to survive a crisis without falling apart, they are faster to recover from cancer and other brushes with death, and they are more likely to contribute to their community. It doesn't cost you anything to let them keep their delusion, and it helps them quite a bit, so leave them alone.

Now, when it gets beyond personal and gets into the political arena, there you have to stand and fight. However, it's still possible to fight politicized religion without attacking non-politicized religion.

[BigBallinStalin]

religious beliefs shouldn't be used as any defense for a public policy. That's just insane.

Please elaborate .

"I refuse to because my special book said so."


Deal with that 'logic', then amplify its effects on millions of people through a political process. Seems really stupid.

[crispybits]

However, it's still possible to fight politicized religion without attacking non-politicized religion.

See I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case. The reason why I'm not entirely convinced is that I don't think non-politicised religion exists any more, at least when we're talking mainstream cults like Christianity. Maybe it used to once, but politicians will take photo-ops at churches, they will tell the voters what devout and god-fearing men and women they are, they have brought religion firmly into the political process already.

If you don't believe this ask yourself whether you believe that two identical men, the same in every respect except one is a professed christian and one is a professed muslim, would get the same results in a democratic vote when running on the same policy platform.

Even if a religious question is never asked during the campaign, just the knowledge that candidate A shares your religious beliefs and candidate B has differing religious beliefs is enough to change voter habits. How can there be any sort of non-politicised religion in that situation unless both candidates kept their religion entirely private, never attended a public worship service, etc etc?

I'd also be curious to know how, if John is a politican who is christian, and Mark is a construction worker who is christian, how can anyone criticise John's beliefs without also criticising Mark's?

[ztodd]

What conflicts would be relevant if religion was eliminated ? Clearly, the world would be a more peaceful place, right ? Or is it just human nature to engage for superiority.

It is human nature to engage for superiority.

[ztodd]

I voted for: I am religious - religious belief should be openly challenged without provocation

But of course it actually depends on what you mean by "challenged". If it means mocked or disrespected, I would definitely have to change my vote.

It is definitely possible to challenge someone's beliefs in a respectful way.

[mrswdk]

What conflicts would be relevant if religion was eliminated ? Clearly, the world would be a more peaceful place, right ?

WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, Falklands, Napoleonic Wars, Sino-Japanese wars, Opium Wars, Barbary Wars, pretty much every colonial war, come on dude.

[danfrank666]

What conflicts would be relevant if religion was eliminated ? Clearly, the world would be a more peaceful place, right ?

WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, Falklands, Napoleonic Wars, Sino-Japanese wars, Opium Wars, Barbary Wars, pretty much every colonial war, come on dude.

Where are we going ? Your list encompasses the last 3 or 400 years , The crusades went on twice as long atleast. My focus is present day. Where most conflicts are religion based. Islams war on the west ( what is the west(duh) ?) ? Islams tribal wars ? israel / palestine ?.
Why is america moving in a secular direction ?

[mrswdk]

The point is that there have been plenty of conflicts that had nothing to do with religion, including pretty much all the major wars of the past century. Feel free to continue cherry-picking and pretending that it's all religion's fault though.

[mrswdk]

If you'd like to hear about some major conflicts that had nothing to do with religion and are more than 3-400 years old then why not Google the Mongolian Empire, the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, the Vikings, the various wars between England and France, Qin Shi Huang's unification of China, and on and on. Do you even believe the point you're making?

[Army of GOD]

the war argument is bad. humans will find a way to hate each other, regardless of religion.

[targetman377]

what about agnostics?? do they not count

[PLAYER57832]

I don't really like any of those answers. It really depends on the setting. I would say we are allowed to respond to religious questions and debates, but most people won't initiate them in public or work settings. The rules are the same whether your faith is belief that their is no God, a non-"standard" religion or one of the "biggies".


Despite what some may think, I don't generally launch into diatribes on Creationism or even corporate politics in general casual conversation (OK, I may slam Walmart now and then ). I will generally engage in discourse when someone expresses interest, may non-antagonistically counter claims made by others with which I disagree (truly, sometimes the internet brings out the worst in debate styles).

HOWEVER, if I am at work.. I try to avoid ALL discussion of religion, except the purely informational or, say appropriate sympathy expressions (for deaths, injuries, etc.). AND, I, well.. have manners. I am far, far less likely to disagree with someone older, with someone in their own house or in front of their kids, etc.

Part of the problem is that some people don't seem to want to distinguish between the innocuous presence of faith and bombastic declarations and demands.
When I operated a day care, I did not take down the 2 small crosses I have on my walls. I did not pray or otherwise speak religion to the kids, except that at one point I had only the kids of friends I knew well and we did say grace before lunch (mostly because one child asked me why I did not)
I have a friend who is a Jehovah's witness and have never given her a birthday gift.. though I have sometimes given her a "thank you" or "hostess" gift (no, not right on here birthday...)

[PLAYER57832]

What conflicts would be relevant if religion was eliminated ?

Any strongly held idea will generate conflict, not just religion.(there have been more than a few threads on this already)


Also, a lot of wars may pretend religion as justification, but are really just land, resource and power grabs.

Clearly, the world would be a more peaceful place, right ? Or is it just human nature to engage for superiority.

Its human nature to want more than they have. The superiority bit only comes into play when someone wants what someone else has. Its not superiority, its greed that drives most war..... most evil, in fact.

[crispybits]

I'm boycotting your poll because I'm agnostic and your narrow range of options marginalizes me.

Yeah, not bullets for agnosticism.....can't vote.

what about agnostics?? do they not count

Gnosticism and agnosticism is about whether you KNOW something. It applies to everything, not just the religious question. I am thorough agnostic about what the woman that just walked past my window had for dinner yesterday for example. A theist can be agnostic too, they could claim to believe a God exists without KNOWING that the God exists.

Theism and athiesm is about whether you BELIEVE in God. If you cannot say "I believe that God exists" truthfully, regardless of the reason why, then you are an atheist.

Only the religious have dogmatically claimed that atheism is a claim to know that there is no God. Atheism has absolutely NOTHING to do with knowledge claims, it's about how you answer one simple yes/no question:

"Do you hold the positive belief that God(s) exist?"

Answer yes to that and you're a theist (or possibly deist), regardless of how certain you are about your answer. Answer no to that and you're an atheist, again regardless of how certain you are in your answer.

[notyou2]

If you'd like to hear about some major conflicts that had nothing to do with religion and are more than 3-400 years old then why not Google the Mongolian Empire, the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, the Vikings, the various wars between England and France, Qin Shi Huang's unification of China, and on and on. Do you even believe the point you're making?

You believe religion had nothing to do with any of those wars, invasions, etc?

Romans - religious
Alexander - religious
Vikings - religious
English - religious
French - religious

Not sure about China and the Mongolians, but I expect they were religious too.

Religion has played a part, possibly not the overwhelming part, but a part nonetheless in just about every conflict involving man except maybe when we were more ape than man.

[crispybits]

I think the point with religion and war is that yes, maybe for the ones at the top of the political chain it was a land grab or power grab, but how did they sell it to the mass ranks individual soldiers?

"We're going to conquer this country. You'll gain nothing much from that perosnally, but our country will be bigger and I'll be able to collect more taxes and all the other benefits inherent in controlling more territory" isn't particularly persuasive for the person who runs a small farm hundreds of miles from the border to leave their family and risk their life to fight.

"God(s) says we must kill the infidels because they are evil and we will be rewarded with eternal paradise (or whatever doctrine that particular religion espouses), and anyone that doesn't fight even though they are able will earn the displeasure of God(s)" is something that is very motivational to a religious peasant farmer...

http://files.wcfia.harvard.edu/569__JHa ... e11-01.pdf

(It's 35 pages but it's not too heavy a read for an academic paper and it has much better referencing and research than I'm willing to put into a forum post)