Atheists on belief threads. Why?

[DioneTheDiabolist]

While there are sometimes interesting threads where atheists and believers discuss and debate religion, it seems to me that increasingly atheists only come onto threads here to poopoo or disrespect the beliefs of others.

Am I right about this and if not then what is the reasoning behind the posts where atheists call the beliefs of others rubbish etc?

A belief in God does, in my view, entail a belief in a deistic being. My personal philosophy is that there is a connection between all living things. I could call that connection 'God' if I wanted, but that would be to remove the concept of God so far from the way in which it is commonly understood that it would render the definition meaningless.

Scientists don't go "I have a theory and I'll accept it on faith. They say, "I have a theory and I will test it to see if it is true." If the tests throw up results that disprove their theory, they will look again at the starting point and then keep investigating."

Faith is "there is no proof for what I believe and no test that can be run to prove or disprove it."

Trying to say that faith and science are alike is akin to saying that fish and rocks are the same.

I know it has been addressed but, tbh, I still don't understand why some atheists are so interested in disproving god or trying to change people's minds about god.

It doesn't bother me if Joe Bloggs doesn't believe. Why should it bother him if I do?!

Thing is, to the rational mind there is no difference at all between people who believe in Jesus, Allah, Buddha, or fairies, ghosts, pixies and homeopathy. It's all rubbish, and belief in it may well be an unimportant quirk in a person (on the same level as preferring tea to coffee, or crime fiction to poetry). It's just that people who believe in some types of rubbish feel and behave as though their particular brand of rubbish gives them rights over other people. That's why it's important to keep pointing out that the nonsense you believe in is your problem and no one else's.

Waltermitty - is Joe Bloggs telling you who you can have sex with, what you can eat, where you can go, what you can read or listen to? The problem I have with the superstitious is their sense of entitlement to control the lives of others on the grounds of what they think their imaginary friend wants.

SGB you put the arguments very well

Well, no.

But then neither do I!

I couldn't give a hairy donkey's testicle what you eat or who you sleep with.

But then it's much more convenient to lump all believers into the same category. Judge them, insult them, patronise them or attempt to, than to acknowledge that belief in a deity can exist in a decent, rational, non-judgemental person.

SGB We ALL want to control the lives of others - that is why we are entitled to vote for the MPs/Councillors/School Governers, that best match our own personal beliefs, wherever those beliefs originate from.

SGB - "It's just that people who believe in some types of rubbish feel and behave as though their particular brand of rubbish gives them rights over other people"

Perhaps I might think what you think is important for society is rubbish too. Perhaps atheists shouldn't be allowed to vote because I might just disagree with what they think. In fact, how dare atheists contribute to decision making in this society. They are all so WRONG.

Do you get my point?

There is no harm in a person of religion believing in God. There is harm when they believe that that god dictates how people should live their lives, and that people who don't live their lives in that way are 'wrong'. It's not the belief in god per se that most atheists find objectionable (they may find it irrational, but not objectionable), but the belief that god has opinions that other people should abide by.

And there's no harm in atheists who don't believe in god.

But there is harm in the ones who mock and ridicule and who appear comocompletely unable to make a point without resorting to utter childishness and insults.

*completely! Bloody tablet!

So where do you get your opinions about what other people should abide by? Why is the source of your opinions superior to an opinion that is influenced by religion? Just because it is your view that God does not exist, does not mean that your view is superior to the view that God does exist (although I understand why you think your view is superior). It is just your view. We live in a democracy so everyone should have their say.

Yes, I have zero interest in fashion, or in horses or chickens or dogs, and they don't impact upon my life (well, apart from all the dogshit on the pavement around here, but there's only so many times you can mention that, and they're bound to say they're already trying to do something about that). So I don't post on those sections. Same with mainly male forums which have sections about cars or football. But it is helpful to join in discussions about religion, because it's not like a harmless little club which just wants to get on with what it's doing. It wants to take an interest in aspects of my life, and my children's - people have already cited all the obvious and valid examples of this. When people are debating points of theology, it isn't actually unhelpful to come along and explain that, in fact, you're talking about stuff which doesn't exist. It's a contribution to the debate. In the spirit of the Enlightenment, if you like...

It's actually very important for atheists to keep framing the debate at every opportunity. If this doesn't happen, it's very easy for it to be presented as a very simplistic "you're for God or against him" argument. One of the many important points made by atheists is that it isn't just about this god and his followers. You may as well be talking about Thor, or Zeus. There are thousands of gods. The same arguments apply. The Egyptians used to believe that the sun was pushed through the sky by a giant beetle - no doubt people who didn't subscribe to this superstition (if there were any) were treated with the same mixture of puzzlement, amusement and pity with which atheists are often regarded by Christians these days. In two thousand years, something else even more ridiculous will have come along and everyone will look back on Christianity and its god as a cultural phenomenon unique to a particular time and place (if history is any good guide)... And atheists need to reiterate their points, otherwise posters will keep getting away with borderline-offensive nonsense like saying that people are only atheists because they hate God, or are angry at God because they've had a bereavement, or because they don't "understand" faith, or that they have a small "grain of faith" .

In 115 messages, not one Christian has said anything of that sort, Dad.

I'm beggining to think the atheists believein mythical posters.

But is it ridiculing to say "there is no proof for what you believe in and so for me it is on a par with believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden or having an imaginary friend"? Is that ridiculing/offensive?

It seems to me that Dad does not believe in democracy.

Views and values permeate society and we cannot agree with them all. What is an impingement for one person will be a benefit for someone else. We can't have everything our own way. Religion is just part of the way that the society we live in is structured. You might not like church schools for example, but they are normally over-subscribed because lots of other people DO like them.

If it doesn't suit you, it doesn't mean that it is wrong. You just don't like something that other people like.

hermione Yes, because it is your choice of pejorative language.

Whatkindof - I am sure someone will put this more eloquently, but I am afraid that saying that belief in something for which there is no proof or evidence is as legitimate as someone choosing not to believe due to the total lack of evidence is poor logic to my mind.

To misquote Bertrand Russell, if I insist there's a tea pot orbiting the earth then the onus is on me to prove it. And as long as I keep it to myself it does o harm, but as soon as insist that other people's lives are impacted by it and their children should be taught about it, other people would be within their rights to say "no, the teapot things your belief but don't impose it n me"

"We live in a democracy so everyone should have their say."

Exactly - no one should have special privileges just because of their beliefs - such as first dibs on local state school places for example.

I have no problem with people choosing not to believe and I would not ridicule anyone for that.

Where I live, there is no worship or promotion of any particular religion in secular schools. I assumed that was a national picture.

waltermitty - oh, this is a comparatively tame thread compared to many others.
However, read some of the early comments again.

I'm not quite sure why whatkindoffool, if she is referring to me, thinks I "do not believe in democracy". Seems something of a non-sequitur based on my above post. Surely my post shows exactly the opposite?

Lizzy I don't know about CofE schools but Catholic state schools are heavily funded by the Catholic Diocese. They are not truly state in the same was as a community school.

Most of you seem to have a problem with the influence of organised religion over non-religious issues. Well, I do too.

So where does the need for derogatory language come from?

It's perfectly possible to express your views on this without inferring that faith equals stupidity.

The burden of "proof" is on the person making the extraordinary claim. Nobody can prove anything "doesn't exist". But what you can do is weigh up the evidence and present it, and make a decision based on how much or how little there is on each side. This seems an eminently reasonable way of going about life to me, and surely not anything which would cause anyone to get in a tizzy. And yet, oddly, it does.

For example, there is evidence both for and against the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, but on balance - even though I can't ever prove, beyond all doubt, that it doesn't exist - the evidence for is sketchy and largely discredited, while the evidence against is solid, extensive and researched with good solid scientific method. It therefore seems grown-up and sensible to go about my life in the assumption that the Loch Ness Monster is just an enjoyable legend and cultural phenomenon. (Thankfully, nobody is trying to tell me I should believe in Her to improve my life, or attempting to have Nessie Studies taken seriously as a doctrine in schools and universities.)