Argument with an atheist

[DukeTwicep]

I had/have an argument with an atheist, I find it hard to believe that he really believes what he's saying but.. given that he does, how should I proceed? I'm a little unsure as to what to respond with.

No, I don't think religion can make people psychopaths, that's certainly not the real purpose for religion [I didn't claim that making psychopaths was the real purpose of religion]. Furthermore, when I said that people are imperfect and will always do bad things, I didn't mean they would fall back into worshipping god, I just mean that people are not angels, and removing god from their lives will not change that. People will always find excuses to wage war, to be intolerant, to be racist, etc, because those are just natural tendencies. You can't go through your entire life without ever getting angry, or making mistakes, even if you don't believe in god. Remember that atheists have waged war and committed genocide as well, so obviously religion is not the root of all evil. Furthermore, religion is not just simple minded fairy tales, religion is a tool which allows societies to teach their members very complex things that aren't easy to understand, this gives them cohesion. It allows a large number of people, whether literate or not, to learn what they need to know to live together as a social unit. Religion is a tool to teach morals and social norms, which vary depending on the type of society you're talking about. You obviously can't apply all the same rules to a nomadic life style as you would a modern western lifestyle in the industrialized world. You have to live according to your environment and deal with people accordingly. Of course some people use religion to start wars, if there was no religion they'd use some other excuse, because war isn't really about religion at all, it's about resources, and power, and that's not going to change any time soon. It would be nice if we could just point to one thing, get rid of it, and be perfect, but it just isn't possible. We are imperfect and have to deal with that fact without hating each other.

 

[Prolescum]

I had/have an argument with an atheist, I find it hard to believe that he really believes what he's saying but.. given that he does, how should I proceed? I'm a little unsure as to what to respond with.

If I were you, I'd use the term "fair enough, mate". He's not saying anything very objectionable. I'm not sure why you find it hard to believe he sees it that way; many people do. How do you view it? What is it he's responding to?

 

[Laurens]

What are you arguing for?

Without that knowledge I couldn't possibly tell you how to respond...

 

[Mauricio Duque]

I may disagree in some points, but i didnt see any reason to you not believe what hes saying.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm not sure what you're arguing for, but I suppose maybe something like this might be helpful:

 

[Andiferous]

I don't see any problems jumping out at me, so if you honestly want an assessment, you'll have to be specific in what problems you see yourself...

 

[Avatra1]

"Religion is a tool to teach morals and social norms, which vary depending on the type of society you're talking about. You obviously can't apply all the same rules to a nomadic life style as you would a modern western lifestyle in the industrialized world."

This made me snigger.

If people are living their lives based on religious "moral" teachings that goes back to "nomadic lifestyle" for instance stoning, in a "nomadic lifestyle" that might go well, but in our modern western lifestyle it is a abhorrent punishment, often being used for crimes of "shame" etc.

Am I then wrong to think that the tool used to teach the "morals" of stoning is fubared?

Of course not.

(http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2011/10/07/matt-slick-defends-honor-killing-a-womans-hymen-is-worth-more-than-her-life/)

 

[Andiferous]

I admit I'm not familiar with the latest sociological evidence and theory (I found sociology classes horribly boring ) so it's hard for me to comment on the theoretical morality shift between nomadic vs. rooted societies. If the poster has more knowledge or study on the subject, the poster should have at least pointed out that these conclusions are hypothetical and theoretical - cited a source, and at the very least, included a disclamer that there may be exceptions.

Can we really know - are there any true nomads around anyway?

Whether or not I think stoning is fubared isn't really the point. I'm in a fairly nice society, moderate standard of living, and I own a house - that makes me non-nomadic according to this theory, and I guess it's possible this is why I abhor stoning as justice.

It's also probable that many poorer cultures in warring districts see more death, and so are less horrified by it as a means of justice.

So to the original point: are you disgusted with speculation about justice within what the poster labeled "nomadic societies" or are you annoyed with the poster's inaccuracies? Or do you take offense to the possibility that the likes of 'stoning' might be 'excused' by this kind of sociological theory? Or do you dispute the possibility that there might be differing moralities among different cultures?

 

[DukeTwicep]

Yes, I was quite upset and angry with his opinion that religion should be excused and that it's not something that needs to be dealt with. But I decided it wasn't worth to continue arguing with him as he's an atheist and then that's pretty pointless. He also seemed pretty convinced.

We were talking about Islam and how violent it is. He responded that the Bible is as violent as the Quran, I didn't think so.

Anyway, it seemed to me like he was a bit too forgiving, probably because he has so many religious friends. I couldn't believe that he actually said that religion can't make psychopaths and that it's not a source of much immorality that we have to, again, deal with it. He thinks that we should let them be and let them believe what they want, and that people will always try to use it for bad.

I also thought that it was a little weird to think that it's a tool to teach people principles and morals. It seems that he thinks that without religion you can't have a society, which is bullshit in my opinion.

I also reacted to that he thought that if you take away the religions the world will be pretty much the same. I mean... wow. That's a bold claim based on that he thinks that people are like this and people will wage wars and justify these things even without religion.

 

[australopithecus]

Yes, I was quite upset and angry with his opinion that religion should be excused and that it's not something that needs to be dealt with.

Well he's right. Billions of people practice their religion, and though it may inform many to have backwards opinions on sex, science or politics many also don't. Religion doesn't need to be dealt with, ignorance needs to be dealt with, but religion and ignorance and not mutually inclusive.

 

[Prolescum]

Yes, I was quite upset and angry with his opinion that religion should be excused and that it's not something that needs to be dealt with. But I decided it wasn't worth to continue arguing with him as he's an atheist and then that's pretty pointless. He also seemed pretty convinced.

Out of the nearly seven billion people on this planet, nearly seven billion of them are theists. You can't "deal" with religion, people have to leave it themselves. You can only educate.

Who gives you the right to impose your non-belief on others? Freedom is far more important than atheism.

We were talking about Islam and how violent it is. He responded that the Bible is as violent as the Quran, I didn't think so.

Your friend is right again. I like this guy.

Anyway, it seemed to me like he was a bit too forgiving, probably because he has so many religious friends.

Or he's just sensible. I'd go with that reason.

I couldn't believe that he actually said that religion can't make psychopaths

Religion isn't an ingestible compound, and to suggest that religion can "make" psychopaths is embarrassing. For you.

Mistakenly calling religion a mental disorder (especially that one) or accusing the religious of psychopathy, is one step away from dehumanising all religious people, and we all know where that kind of thinking leads.

Do you know what a psychopath is?

and that it's not a source of much immorality that we have to, again, deal with it.

Okay, I've made objections to your post, and perhaps I'm missing some nuance to your view; let's look at it from your perspective for a moment; how do we "deal with it"?

He thinks that we should let them be and let them believe what they want, and that people will always try to use it for bad.

Do you live in a western democracy? If so, shame on you. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be able to believe what they want? In a free country?

I also thought that it was a little weird to think that it's a tool to teach people principles and morals. It seems that he thinks that without religion you can't have a society, which is bullshit in my opinion.

Most religious people are as moral and principled as I think I am. I can't say the same about you, at least from having read your posts in this thread. All this talk of "dealing with" religion puts you on shaky moral ground, and I'm not sure any principle that says "those people believe something I don't, let's get rid of 'em!" is one we should promulgate. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I stand against that view wholeheartedly.

I also reacted to that he thought that if you take away the religions the world will be pretty much the same.

He's right again. People make war.

You should invite this chap to this forum, he sounds cool.

I mean... wow. That's a bold claim based on that he thinks that people are like this and people will wage wars and justify these things even without religion.

He's right yet again, you should listen to him more often. If there were no religion, there would still be pride, avarice, desperation, the strong, the weak, ego, power, resources... These are they type of things that set man upon man. Religion is often just flavouring. To even remotely suggest war would disappear without religion shows a gargantuan mis-understanding of human beings throughout history.

With all this said, I may be misinterpreting your perspective. If so, feel free to clear it up for me.

 

[Laurens]

My advice in this argument would be to wholeheartedly agree, your friend has not said anything unreasonable.

You on the other hand have, by the looks of things.

Yes, I was quite upset and angry with his opinion that religion should be excused and that it's not something that needs to be dealt with.

How do you deal with religion pray tell? Why should people not be excused their fundamental freedom to believe what they want to?

 

[DukeTwicep]

Prolescum, could you be more condescending? I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted you but you act like you understood my point of view without even investigating it. I mean, that would be cool if we were on YT, but, seriously? I was thinking about having more adult and calm discussions, but perhaps that's too far a stretch on the internet. I guess one can only expect condescension, irony and sarcasm when sitting in front of the screen.
Oh I'm being negative. Perhaps you were just human and judged me on beforehand, and people expect me to be adult and let it slide because, well we all make mistakes.

So I agree I made some mistakes with the arguments. Psychopathy was not the right term to use, and "deal with" is apparently something that people interprets too much into. What I meant with "deal with" is education of course. Separation of Church and state. Separation of Church and schools. And ultimately, perhaps also not allowing the indoctrination of children. I don't believe that children are the property of their parents, and I don't believe most parents know what's best for the children, but perhaps we could educate them about that. If that fails, then perhaps children should be brought up in collectives instead, or just go to school even earlier and for longer periods of time, so as to not allow the parents to inflict any potential harm on them.
This was part of the "dealing with" religion. It's also about the atheist community making itself more known and more accepted.

I assume these are things that you would agree on? Or perhaps educating people is dehumanizing? Oh wait, you expected me to say "LET*S KILL ALL CHRISTIANS, LET*S FORCE OUR BELIEFS ON THEM" , embarrassing. (sarcasm, sorry I slipped, I just had say it)

Alright then, but if the bible and the quran are so harmless, then I guess I'll just go and sleep. No need to debate with religious people. I'm so stupid to have believed that religion could cause any harm that would not have been caused if they had not been invented.

Alright, let's answer some of your points. "Religion isn't an ingestible compound". No the concept religion isn't ingestible, that's stupid. However. The words in the holy books are "ingested" and sometimes "incorporated" into the bodies (minds) of people. Oh wait. I'm a hypocrite. Yes the concept religion is ingestible in that it is incorporated into the memory of people. It's also ingestible if you write it on a paper and eat the paper. That would be the recommended way to ingest the holy texts.


"Mistakenly calling religion a mental disorder". Wow, it's hard for me to not use the S word here. I said that it CAN cause it. I didn't say that every religious person is a psychopath. I mean, what the fuck, do you have a reading disorder? Of course not, that would "dehumanize" you.
But I used the wrong word. And I apologize for that. It's too bad you had to resort to condensation instead of calmly asking, "can you elaborate?". Are you sure you live in a civilized country?

Bah, what does it matter. You'll just say I'm a hypocrite for also being condescending. I will not answer the rest of your questions just because of your attitude. I believe it's in my right to do so without taking any heat. I have more important things to do than argue with the likes of you, like.. play some more rounds of Battlefield.

My advice in this argument would be to wholeheartedly agree, your friend has not said anything unreasonable.

You on the other hand have, by the looks of things.

Yes, I was quite upset and angry with his opinion that religion should be excused and that it's not something that needs to be dealt with.

How do you deal with religion pray tell? Why should people not be excused their fundamental freedom to believe what they want to?

Thank you for asking. I'm sorry that I articulated myself in a bad way, after all I'm not from an English speaking country and thus my vocabulary is somewhat limited (I use the online dictionaries frequently though).

Like I told prolescum. My idea of "dealing with" religion is to educate people, and giving them the tools to create sound morals and world views. The education in the world is very much lacking in this area, and only a few have been given the chance to be as free in mind as many are here.
It's also about getting rid of the bad label that Atheism has around the world. It's about a lot of other things as well, but it's not about getting rid of religious people by forcing beliefs on them or killing them. I think it's more about safeguarding the future of those children that hasn't been indoctrinated yet, for those that already believe are often lost causes, and if not, they will find their way. This is the reason for the Atheist experience I've assumed, to break free those that already falter in their faith.

I believe that religious beliefs are harmful and people should be prevented from having them if they do not have them, for their own good. The state does this with other things, so why not with religious beliefs? The people in Sweden think that Nazi (as an example) are bad and the government tries to keep them away from the reach of teenagers that would perhaps otherwise be lured into these groups. Why not do the same with religion? Why can't the state try to keep children away from religious institutions and teaching until they reach adulthood? I don't believe that's bad, I believe that the state should do everything in it's power to safeguard the people from what's harmful, but of course not to hinder them if they really want to, only keep it at a safe distance and letting people choose for themselves.

 

[Welshidiot]

....I don't believe most parents know what's best for the children, but perhaps we could educate them about that. If that fails, then perhaps children should be brought up in collectives instead,....

Here's an idea,.....why don't we send parents to "re-education" camps, and at the same time we could send their children to "anti-indoctrination" camps?

That'd kill two birds with one stone. What do you think DukeTwicep?

 

[nasher168]

Welcome to the forums, DukeTwicep.

An important thing to know: Prolescum, Welshidiot and ImprobableJoe are the assholes of the forums. Their posts are frequently blunt, terse, both or all three.
But their posts are very rarely if ever trolling and their points are, more often than not, entirely valid. And probably worth listening to.

We've all been on the receiving ends of their harsh posts at one point or another (although I think I've only had ImprobableJoe personally...), just role with it, respond as best you can and concede when you are defeated.

 

[Laurens]

(although I think I've only had ImprobableJoe personally....)

Ooooh kinky

 

[nasher168]

Ooooh kinky

We were discussing foreskins at the time, as I recall.

 

[Prolescum]

Prolescum, could you be more condescending?

Yes, of course. I'm an arsehole, apparently

I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted you but you act like you understood my point of view without even investigating it. I mean, that would be cool if we were on YT, but, seriously? I was thinking about having more adult and calm discussions, but perhaps that's too far a stretch on the internet. I guess one can only expect condescension, irony and sarcasm when sitting in front of the screen.

I take it you haven't met many British people, then? Seeing as you were thinking about having an adult and calm conversation, you must be somewhat embarrassed at reacting to criticism of your views like a spoiled child having a tantrum. I'm a big fan of irony, but you blow my mind. My points were lucid and clear. It's not my fault that your ego is so easily bruised.

Oh I'm being negative. Perhaps you were just human and judged me on beforehand, and people expect me to be adult and let it slide because, well we all make mistakes.

Yes, we do. I didn't judge you, I responded to your statements in this thread and asked that you correct me if need be. That's hardly "judging you".

So I agree I made some mistakes with the arguments. Psychopathy was not the right term to use, and "deal with" is apparently something that people interprets too much into. What I meant with "deal with" is education of course. Separation of Church and state. Separation of Church and schools. And ultimately, perhaps also not allowing the indoctrination of children. I don't believe that children are the property of their parents, and I don't believe most parents know what's best for the children, but perhaps we could educate them about that. If that fails, then perhaps children should be brought up in collectives instead, or just go to school even earlier and for longer periods of time, so as to not allow the parents to inflict any potential harm on them.

I refer you to Welshidiot's post.

This was part of the "dealing with" religion. It's also about the atheist community making itself more known and more accepted.

By taking children away from their parents because you think your view is the right one? Bring up children in collectives? Yep, that'll help the "atheist community" to be accepted. Yes siree.

I assume these are things that you would agree on?

No. Not at all. I've already stated that freedom is far more important than atheism. Oh, I forgot, you had rage-steam in your eyes and didn't actually take in my post. That's fine, I get that sometimes when I point out the more egregious parts.

Or perhaps educating people is dehumanizing? Oh wait, you expected me to say "LET*S KILL ALL CHRISTIANS, LET*S FORCE OUR BELIEFS ON THEM" , embarrassing. (sarcasm, sorry I slipped, I just had say it)

No, I didn't expect you to say "kill all Christians", but you most certainly are suggesting we force our beliefs upon them.

Alright then, but if the bible and the quran are so harmless, then I guess I'll just go and sleep.

Where did I state they were harmless? Oh right, I didn't. I did say: Most religious people are as moral and principled as I think I am.

No need to debate with religious people. I'm so stupid to have believed that religion could cause any harm that would not have been caused if they had not been invented.

Your attempt at sarcasm is noted. 3/10. 2 points awarded for trying.

Alright, let's answer some of your points.

Okay, but as long as you pick up the relevant ones.

"Religion isn't an ingestible compound".

Oh dear...

No the concept religion isn't ingestible, that's stupid. However. The words in the holy books are "ingested" and sometimes "incorporated" into the bodies (minds) of people. Oh wait. I'm a hypocrite. Yes the concept religion is ingestible in that it is incorporated into the memory of people. It's also ingestible if you write it on a paper and eat the paper. That would be the recommended way to ingest the holy texts.

Was... was that... funny? Ah, no it wasn't. There was something on my tooth.

"Mistakenly calling religion a mental disorder". Wow, it's hard for me to not use the S word here.

What, Sweden?

I said that it CAN cause it. I didn't say that every religious person is a psychopath. I mean, what the fuck, do you have a reading disorder?

Actually, you said "I couldn't believe that he actually said that religion can't make psychopaths". Religion can't make psychopaths. Psychopaths may well thrive in an environment conducive to their condition (like evangelism), but that is not the same thing.

And no, I don't have a reading disorder. Unless reading exceptionally well most of the time is a disorder. Which it isn't.

Of course not, that would "dehumanize" you.

Oh for fuck's sake, this reactionary, defensive bollocks is depressingly trite.

But I used the wrong word. And I apologize for that. It's too bad you had to resort to condensation instead of calmly asking, "can you elaborate?". Are you sure you live in a civilized country?

You didn't just use the wrong word though, did you? You used one you don't understand. That, by the way, is not intended as an insult. I don't expect you'll accept that given your reaction to my previous post, but the truth is where it needs to be.

I never resort to condensation because my physiology makes it impossible and yes, I live in a "civilised" country. Pandering to your ego is not civility, however. If you're offended by what I've said in this thread, that is entirely about you.

Bah, what does it matter. You'll just say I'm a hypocrite for also being condescending.

Lol, was this an attempt to be condescending? You might want to work on it somewhat.

I will not answer the rest of your questions just because of your attitude.

You mean, you won't answer any of my questions because you're butthurt.

Honesty is a virtue, young padawan.

I believe it's in my right to do so without taking any heat.

It is your "right" to not respond as much as it is my "right" to show you where I think you err.

I have more important things to do than argue with the likes of you, like.. play some more rounds of Battlefield.

The "likes" of me? There's no one quite like me, son. What the fuck is Battlefield?

 

[nasher168]

Yes, of course. I'm an arsehole, apparently

Damn right you are
And a lovable one at that.

 

[Welshidiot]

Yes, of course. I'm an arsehole, apparently

Damn right you are
And a lovable one at that.

I'm not....