To really hate it when atheists take the piss out of those who believe in God?

[sharkirasharkira]

I have several FB friends who are obvious atheists, and often share things about science and/or about the concept of God being stupid -basically saying that anyone who believes in God is an idiot, a child (with an 'imaginary friend') or someone who has no idea about science and the universe.

I get that not everyone has faith in a higher being/religion etc but why the childish name calling and the necessity to take the piss out of those who do? It just really irritates me! Belief in God and an appriciation of science are not mutually exclusive. I find it quite offensive that people who don't know my personal beliefs are essentially saying that if I believe in God I must be an idiot or a child who believes in magical sky fairies, because theres no possible way I can believe in evolution (for example) and be an agnostic.

Aibu to think that people should just let others believe what they want to believe without mocking them for it, even if they don't agree with it?

Well fallen I’m afraid I do link intolerance and bigotry to a lack of intelligence. Intelligent people debate or decide to live and let live. People who do not know how to debate intelligently, mock sneer and name call instead.

Op just needs to cut those people out of her life. And if she only knows them on social media she can unfriend them.

Religion tends to be ridiculed and it is said that it can't be true as there is no proof.
There may not be but there also isn't proof for a lot of other things people believe yet tend not to be questioned nor ridiculed on.

No one has the right to ridicule anyone on their beliefs when they themselves can't be sure theirs is true either. Just because something makes sense to you and you chose to deem true, does not make the other less significant. Everyone has reasons for their chosen beliefs.

It's more a question of evidence than proof. I tell my students that evidence is for science, proof is for maths.

you seem to be suggesting that because some people are over sensitive to polite responses, everyone is fair game for ridicule

No I am just saying it is human nature to ridicule the ridiculous. Maybe is impolite but its certainly human and often necessary. What sort of society will we become if we normalise and accept the ridiculous?

As PP have said, respect the person, not the belief.

Just because something makes sense to you and you chose to deem true, does not make the other less significant.

I think there are two issues here. First is the way you’re continuing to mischaracterise science and evidence as something one can choose to think is true, rather than something that is grounded in the quest for objective, testable, repeatable, truth. It is not a ‘belief’ equivalent to a faith, where by definition the belief is in something not grounded in objective evidence.

The second is your assertion that belief in a deity is equivalent - or just as signifant - as scientific or other evidence. I’m afraid it isn’t. It’s highly subjective, you see. It is clearly significant to you. The things you believe in as part of a faith have no significance to me apart from intellectual interest in how others live and how belief systems came to be.

That’s not to say I wish to tell you not t believe what you believe. Knock yourself out. But I cannot pretend your god, or other gods, are significant to me, and I certainly do not think they should be afforded special status in public policy or state funding.

In fact, I said that. Ridiculing is going to make someone feel awful. It's not respecting the person.

But who says it is ridicule? It's making a logical point.
Gravity is a scientific theory, it explains observations, it makes predictions that can be tested and could disprove it. Religion, like fairies, is claiming something exists that can't be observed and doesn't make testable predictions. If you want to assert that disbelief in God is a position of faith, I think you logically also need to treat disbelief in fairies as a position of faith. And unicorns. And invisible flying teapots. This is a type of logical argument called reductio ad absurdam: assume the initial statement is true and draw logical conclusions until you get to something that sounds silly. It doesn't mean I'm saying Christians believe in fairies. What I'm saying is that IF it's a matter of faith to disbelieve in God, it's also a matter of faith to disbelieve in fairies. Which apparently (judging by the general outrage at the comparison) most Christians agree is an absurd conclusion. So either we could agree that disbelief is a default rather than a faith position, or you could try to knock down the logic that leads me from one to the other.

Ridicule is julie8008's own word. So, she does!

I was referring more to OP's original post and all the posters agreeing with her.

I am a Christian. I believe because I have researched the evidence (on both sides, not just from one biased source) that Jesus existed and I believe he did. I believe his claim that he was the son of God. I don't believe he was a liar or mentally ill so therefore I believe he was telling the truth.

Science and religion are different. You can be a scientist and believe in God. Science tell us how things work. Religion tells us why. The Bible is not a scientific text book.

Insulting and mocking someone's beliefs is not respecting that person at all. You can't say I respect the person but not their beliefs as they are not a separate thing.

PS God has a capital letter - it's a name.

The thing is though, it's not live and let live is it? The Catholic Church and the Church of England for examples as official bodies who control vast parts and systems in our country have waltzed into other countries and actively persecuted and changed others beliefs and ways of life.

I have been in churches through my job - again part of official organisations- that continue to preach hatred (although thinly disguised) of gay people.

People that I know willingly go into these places and support these official bodies but choose to look past the damage they've previously done and hate they continue to spread and expect immunity to being questioned about it.

If you stripped out the words god and church and looked at what some of these places teach I doubt you'd find much difference between them and white supremacist organisations or people who believe in witch craft. "Witches" being another example of people that the church have destroyed over the years.

If you just believe in "a god" with nothing to go with it then you aren't hurting anyone but If you are part of an official organisation that controls and has committed absolute atrocities throughout history you have to be prepared to be called out on it.

Religion is not inclusive it's exclusive to the highest degree.

Democracy is also a position of 'faith'. So are capitalism, gods, Kings, money, human rights, communism, etc etc. They are all social organising principles we have collectively imagined since human society began. Religious faith has lasted longer than - and will no doubt last longer than - any of these. In addition, religious groupings are responsible for a small fraction of the deaths linked to secular belief systems. Just think, for example, of the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s - the largest man made famine in recorded history.

We are story-telling creatures with a fundamental need for a narrative that gives our life meaning. This idea that something has no value because it lacks scientific 'proof' overlooks what it means to be human.

Ridiculing is going to make someone feel awful. It's not respecting the person

Tough love or the lesser of two evils. Is it better to reason with someone who has a ridiculous belief or leave them in ignorance. I know with children its more respectful to correct their delusion than leave them in it, so they can grow up to live a more fulfilled life. eg It sometimes happens that you have to tell a child Santa doesn't exist, even if they cry it is more respectful than leaving them ignorant and open to lifelong ridicule.

I imagine with Face book like twitter you dont have hours and hours of patient debate you have a few characters to make a point.

God has a capital letter - it's a name.

Not necessarily. Why do you think your god (small g, common noun) is more relevant to an atheist than any other gods?

God (proper noun, capital G) is the name of your particular god. It is also a common noun, which can be plural.

We are story-telling creatures with a fundamental need for a narrative that gives our life meaning. This idea that something has no value because it lacks scientific 'proof' overlooks what it means to be human.
Yes that's very important

I have total respect for others’ beliefs and opinions, and tolerate all creeds, faiths and races. I’m an atheist/possibly bordering on agnostic and have found it very hard to be true to my beliefs when around very devout religious friends, particularly an old uni friend who was a very good and lovely lady, but made me feel slightly awkward when I used to visit her parents’ house and on particular awkward occasion, found myself saying grace at various meals and going to church with her. I found myself unable to speak up and say I wasn’t really religious and felt very hypocritical when someone at church asked me about what I did, then said ‘isn’t it nice to have a Christian journalist - I don’t often meet one of those’.

I’m sure if i’d said I was actually an atheist I would have been chased out of the church there and then. I’m not sure why it was so difficult for me to be more assertive and say what my actual beliefs were. I guess I was very aware of being ‘mocked’ or not having her friendship or something. I’m sure she probably knew I wasn’t really a Christian as she was always trying to get me to join the Christian society at uni and make me follow the course they have (I can’t remember its name).

I also remember having a fierce debate with another good friend about the existence of God, and he got very very defensive when I said ‘where’s the evidence to prove that God does exist?’ I decided after our heated discussion never to talk about religion again, as he wasn’t going to accept that I was an atheist or couldn’t be convinced about the existence of God or anything in the Bible. I’m still good friends with him but i’m sure if i’d pushed my beliefs onto him more, we wouldn’t be friends.

I guess a lot of you haven't been to as many funerals as I have. Dignified endings to people's lives and celebrations of people's lives. And yes I've been to humanist funerals and they were not the same.

In addition, religious groupings are responsible for a small fraction of the deaths linked to secular belief systems. Just think, for example, of the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s - the largest man made famine in recorded history.

I think that’s a very big claim, particularly when you take into account the horrific impact of colonialism linked in part to ideas of the superiority of Christianity (as well as race).

But I this is really more an example of evidence that ideology of all sorts (inclduing communism, Bolshevism, religion, manifest destiny, racial supremacy, whatever) is dangerous. Secularism wasn’t the motivator for the Russian revolution or the Ukrainian famine; it was part of an ideological project. Ditto the Crusades, ditto the Rwandan genocide, and very, very much misery in human history.

We are story-telling creatures with a fundamental need for a narrative that gives our life meaning. This idea that something has no value because it lacks scientific 'proof' overlooks what it means to be human.

I don’t think anyone has come close to saying that. But that stories of gods have, or should have, inherent value above that we assign to other fiction to those who don’t agree that those gods exist is a much, much bigger claim.

As it happens, there is a great deal of literature, art, and music made in the name of religion, which I enjoy very much. Does it outweigh the negatives? Not for me, but that’s a personal call. I don’t think my personal pleasure and enjoyment is worth even one life. And I certainly don’t think that it is a decent argument for trying to impose the beliefs of a particular faith of people who don’t share it.

In Christianity "God" is more of a title...I'd list some of the names of God and their meanings but that would probably count as ramming my beliefs down other people's throats

I guess a lot of you haven't been to as many funerals as I have. Dignified endings to people's lives and celebrations of people's lives. And yes I've been to humanist funerals and they were not the same.

What a pity. I’ve been to some wonderful, personal, beautiful non-religious funerals and some awful, paint by numbers religious ones. As well as lovely religious funerals and dreadful secular ones. However I do know that familiarity of ritual can provide a great deal of comfort.

Do you think that because (you feel) religious funerals are better, it’s evidence of the existence of God?

Has anyone read Yuval Harari's Homo Deus? Science (or really computer science) as the next 'religion'. I'm probably not doing him justice. It's an interesting read.

In Christianity "God" is more of a title...I'd list some of the names of God and their meanings but that would probably count as ramming my beliefs down other people's throats

Many of us know them already. We’re not all as ignorant about Christianity as some seem to believe. I’ll stand by my statement that ‘god’ is not always a proper noun; I’m content not to split hairs between name and title.

But why take the passive aggressive stance? This is a thread where people have been discussing religion and the occasional point of theology. What makes you think that in a place where people are discussing religion, it would be ‘ramming it down throats’ to discuss what you believe?

Claiming it’s factual and it should give you preferential treatment in school admissions and the legislature, on the other hand...

Derxa - I have been to plenty of funerals, too (some religious, some free from religion). I have also conducted some non-religious funerals, and they have been wonderful, appropriate celebrations of a life. To rational people, crap about imaginary friends and imaginary other worlds is often the absolute reverse of comforting at a funeral. Humanist and religion-free funerals are very much on the increase because people don't want irrelevant stories told by someone who didn't know them or the deceased and is just going through the motions.

Do you think that because (you feel) religious funerals are better, it’s evidence of the existence of God? What a ridiculous statement. I think we know we can't prove the existence of God.
However I do know that familiarity of ritual can provide a great deal of comfort. That is closer to it.
What a pity. They're not theatrical performances for my enjoyment. They were services which chosen by the bereaved families. And in my case my brother, mother and father.

Democracy, human rights and money are ideologies too.. You can't just pick out the ones you don't like. They are all products of the collective human imagination.