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?

Julie did I hit a nerve? Haha.

Julie did I hit a nerve? Haha

What nerve? You cant just make stuff up

Perfect comment. @valerrie ...

Not really, it's the same as mocking flat earthers or homeopathy. They don't exist/work

This this this this

Macro evolution certainly is a term used in science. To mean longer scale evolution resulting in the splitting of species. As opposed to shorter term micro evolution where the branches can still inter-breed. It's not a different thing, just the same thing happening on a longer time scale.?

Macro evolution certainly is a term used in science. To mean longer scale evolution resulting in the splitting of species

Nope not buying it, no science book I have ever read uses this term. Its a religious apologist term invented by young earth creationists to explain away the contradiction between science and religion. aka fake news.

Hate to say it @Julie8008 but macroevolution seems to be a scientific thing. It can be used as a red herring by creationists but does serve a purpose for scientists too.

From what I understand, it can be used as a creationist argument whereby 'yes, I can see small evolution i.e. we're slowly getting taller as a species and we look different' but they add the red herring along the lines of 'but I've never seen a cat turning into a dog' or 'species can't change into another'. They don't understand that these millions of micro changes become a macro one.

As @catkind said, it's evolution at the level where species branch. Of course it's all covered by the general term evolution and can be wrongly used by science-deniers but when used correctly it seems fine to me. It seems like micro and macro economics. Whilst the former is the study of individuals and single enterprises and the latter the economy as a whole, macro econ. is comprised of all the micro econ. Still useful to differentiate the two.

Disclaimer, I've nothing relevant beyond an O Level in Biology.

Not really, it's the same as mocking flat earthers or homeopathy. They don't exist/work

Similar but not the same.

"Homeopathy, making fuck all difference since 1796"
"Religion - killing, harming and causing suffering for millennia"

Because when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility, as it is always subject to revision.

But that doesn't make it wrong.

We used to think the earth was flat, then we thought it was a sphere, now we think it is spherical with a bit of a bulge.

Thinking the earth was a sphere was far more the 'right' answer than thinking it was flat. Science revises what we now and becomes more accurate.

Berkeley is good on explaining the scientific difference (any why the ‘they’re all still fish’ argument is irrelevant):

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation, migration, genetic drift, natural selection.

The terms have of course been hijacked and used in spurious unscientific ways by creationists.

I would love to be brave enough to openly discuss my atheism on Facebook and vent my true feelings about religion the way I can anonymously here on mn but unfortunately I live in a society where the default setting is you must be Christian if you are white and where religion is steeped in our schools and politics. It is not a good thing ! Women do not have access to abortion, LGBT rights are denied, politians seek to allow discrimination for Christians because of their beliefs in a dusty old book.

Sound like some backward middle eastern country? Guess again

So I applaud those who stand up against religion and use their free speech to express themselves, mock away !

But that doesn't make it wrong.

Of course it doesn't, but the same could be said for religion.
Just because there's no proof, doesn't make it wrong.

A lot of religious people have researched their chosen religion, which is also one of the many reasons people chose to leave faith as well. Religion is absolutely defendable, or it would not have lasted well over 2000 years, with a very high population (84%) of the world following a religion.

So what is it adherents want?

Free speech or not? It seems very one sided here.
Religious people want the right to tell us heathens that we are fornicators who are going to hell and our children are sinners,
yest they bleat when their god is referred to a sky fairy.

Seems the religious want it both ways.

Just because there's no proof, doesn't make it wrong.

No. But the lack of evidence (note: not ‘proof’, just any supporting evidence) makes it very unlikely. See also dragons.

Religion is absolutely defendable, or it would not have lasted well over 2000 years, with a very high population (84%) of the world following a religion.

I don’t think that evidence necessarily defends the conclusion you have drawn from it; they are two statements and the causal link between them is missing.

"Religion is absolutely defendable defensible, or it would not have lasted well over 2000 years"

Like racism you mean? Or homophobia?

Comparing religion to dragons is disrespectful. I'm sure the percentage of people in the world believing in dragons is much much smaller, than those who believe in religion.

Nextday, I don't think homeopathy is quite that benign. Maybe "homeopathy, exploiting the gullible for profit and distracting those in need from conventional medicine since 1796". Though admittedly the state of conventional medicine in 1796 might have been such that the latter started off as a benefit.

Religion is only as difficult to prove as, say, 'national identity', something lots of people seem to have no problem accepting as 'real', and for which there is no 'evidence' except the manifestation of beliefs. It is also the cause of more deaths than religion, even if you include crusades etc (thanks in part to our becoming more efficient killing machines in the 20th C). National identity is far younger than religious identity however, and who knows, perhaps less likely to stay the course. In, say, five hundred years, there is a fair chance that, for example, the British national 'identity' will have morphed into something else entirely.

No it is not disrespectful namechanger, it is a logical comparison that you are free to refute if you can. Dragons, belief without evidence. Religion, belief without evidence.

Figment, noone's debating whether religion exists, just whether deities do.

"Comparing religion to dragons is disrespectful."

Yep. Dragons are brilliant. Have you seen Shrek (PBUH)?

@catkind - perhaps, but we're comparing it to religion. Relatively benign.

I just googled medicine from 1790s and it sounds fun.

"the view that there were only two diseases, sthenic and asthenic, and two treatments, stimulant and sedative; the chief remedies were alcohol and opium."

“Religion is absolutely defendable, or it would not have lasted well over 2000 years, with a very high population (84%) of the world following a religion.”

Religion has lasted so long for other reasons, eg culture, psychology, the power of churches and states, not because it stacks up.

In many, many countries there are strong disincentives to not practicing the state sanctioned religion(s) or publicly admitting even agnosticism. Many people also have not had access to good, secular education.

If the headline ‘Scientists discover new breed of lizard in the rainforest’ is in the paper, you don’t automatically assume dragon do you? Even though the human race has been talking about dragons for thousands of years in lots of different countries and a lot of people (myself included) think dragons are cool and would quite like them to be real. That’s because, we know dragons are creatures of the imagination and don’t exist, though they may be based on real things like big lizards or dinosaur fossils.

There might be something like a god (dinosaur fossil, big lizard) but it isn’t the God in the stories as it’s not possible for that God to exist. It’s really not the same as not knowing the totality of a scientific theory yet.

Humans like ideologies, it’s a shame we (general we) often use them to hurt each other and the world.

Comparing religion to dragons is disrespectful. I'm sure the percentage of people in the world believing in dragons is much much smaller, than those who believe in religion.

I wasn’t comparing religion to dragons, and I suspect you know that full well, but decided not to engage with the actual argument.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the comparison was the evidence base and likelihood of dragons to the evidence base and likelihood of gods, or any particular god.

Religion is only as difficult to prove as, say, 'national identity', something lots of people seem to have no problem accepting as 'real', and for which there is no 'evidence' except the manifestation of beliefs.

It would indeed be foolish to try to argue that there is no evidence for the existence of religions. I’ve just walked past a church. I have a friend who’s a vicar. My son goes to a CofE school. Plenty of concrete evidence for the existence of religion.

The question is whether the gods that inspire, motivate and justify the beliefs and behaviours of their followers are real, and whether there is any evidence for their existence. The alternative is that they are fictions created by humans to try to make sense of the world. Logic dictates that the majority, if not all of them, must be. The lack of evidence for any of them - and the clear evidence that humans have successfully created gods and built successful and enduring belief systems around them - strongly supports that none are real.

'Can you 'prove' there really is a 'God'' is the wrong question IMHO. It's where people like Dworkins end up. It's boring. It really doesn't matter whether or not an external 'entity' does or doesn't exist' - (spoiler, he/she/it probably doesn't). What matters is whether people believe this and if so why, why for so long, why so many people, what's it 'for' etc

If anyone is in London there's a great exhibition of religious belief symbols on at the moment, soon to close. The opening exhibit is the earliest known manifestation of a deity, half lion half man, found in a cave in Germany I think. Why do we have a human need to tell ourselves complex stories like this? That's the interesting question, IMHO

People seem to routinely go down the route of linking religion to violence but 21st C 'religious' violence, while gory, barbaric, indefensible and medieval and very public, kills relatively few people when compared with other 20th C killing machines that were positively irreligious, indeed actively persecuted religious minorities.

Comparing gods to dragons is disrespectful, IF one of those is real and the other is imaginary. I can’t see any difference in the literature about either. Sure, holy books and songs tell you how to live your life, so do fairy tales and nursery rhymes.

I’m so baffled by the force of will that is regularly applied by people to WILLFULLY ignore critical thinking to maintain faith in something that is so grossly unrealistic that a child of nine can pick holes in it.

Why? Why bother? I get that death and injustice and grief are all fucking horrible and maybe fantasy land is preferable but we’re adults, we can’t just bury our head in God’s Will or Inshallah and pretend they will fix it. WE have to fix it. Bees are dying, children are sent to war, polar bears are starving. Story time needs to be over.