Scared of theism

John Wine

John Wine wrote:

Well here's a quote from a previous poster:

Theism can freak me out because the religious are people who have the capacity to deeply and truly believe something that is wholly ridiculous to me

This thread was for atheists to express their fears, we all have fears.
Instead it has turned out to be an attack on my personnel beliefs.
This demostrates the fear but it does not explain it.

We're talking to you, not attacking you
are you afraid of being questioned?
Maybe we should make a thread on why theists are scared of atheists

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

what about your fear of questioning your feelings?

can you explain that? do you even want to? People have answered every one of your questions, and answered them as well as we could.. not being scientists or working in related fields. You keep dodging ours and repeating the same ol' phrase. That's pretty pathetic.

Maybe we should make a thread on why theists are scared of atheists

it'd be a very short thread

post #1 = why are theists scared of atheists?

post #2 = because we're right and they know it.

post #3 - Oh,.. right, yeah that makes sense. Someone oughta sticky this.

John Wine

bluewolf wrote:

We're talking to you, not attacking you
are you afraid of being questioned?
Maybe we should make a thread on why theists are scared of atheists

I am afraid of not being respected. It is not a nice feeling.

Mordeth

Mordeth wrote:

it'd be a very short thread

post #1 = why are theists scared of atheists?

post #2 = because we're right and they know it.

post #3 - Oh,.. right, yeah that makes sense. Someone oughta sticky this.

But then we could accuse them randomly of attacking us and not respecting us

not being scientists or working in related fields.

I'm only a scientist in training ;(

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

would it be considered a personal attack to tell him he doesn't have to worry about losing respect?

what about asking the question?

oh I'm so confused

John Wine

Mordeth wrote:

would it be considered a personal attack to tell him he doesn't have to worry about losing respect?

what about asking the question?

oh I'm so confused

I think you are trivialising this debate.
I accept most atheists in this thread are not freaked out by theists. If not speak out why - like Zillah did.
I accept most atheists in this thread are freaked out by fundies who are biggots. So are my.
What about the in between?
Fundies who are not biggots?
What are you fears of these people, do you have any? And why?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

plenty, I'm scared of dying, cancer, choking on this piece of apple that I'm chewing on (that's why I chew, because I'm scared of choking).

I suppose I could say I'm generally scared of scary things


--edit

just a quick update to let everyone know the apple passed down my throat gracefully, and has yet to come back up. I'm feeling good about this.

Dave!

John Wine wrote:

I think you are trivialising this debate.
What are you fears do you have any?

I think you trivialised it from the first post on when you kept on putting the words "I am scared of theism because..." into everyone's mouths. We're not afraid or freaked out of theism, it just isn't for us because it is not based on logic or evidence.

You are the one who is projecting your fears onto us. It's okay not to have a divine 'reason' for being here. Your life is finite. You will die and that will be the end of it.

Live your life now and don't worry about a stupid book

And I'm scared of lots of things, none of which are hellfire and brimstone.

5uspect

John Wine wrote:

I think you are going way off the point.
I came here because as I am curious as to why atheists get freaked out by theists. The only efforts by the atheists in this thread to explain this is by picking ridiculous extremes of religious groups in the states that only have 70 members or so.
I don't know anybody that thinks Science must preach similar to Religion.

I'm not freaked out by theists, only annoyed and confused at their failure to appreciate the validity of any other explanation other that what they were told. I would rather people think for themselves.

No one has pointed out some gun toting extreme group in the US, but if you want one the National Association of Evangelicals has millions of members. Maybe that is what you are trying to get at? Why do groups like these worry us?

As regards concepts like love and other "deep" feelings there is a lot of work already done and being done on these. Google (Scholar) searches do not trivialise them but point you to the published data, from the horses mouth.

An interesting but sometimes disturbing place to start is Harlow's experiments with monkey mother-child love.

All of this work and all other scientific work generally treats these deep rooted emotions as simply chemical and mental reactions evolved over time to aiding survival of the species. Other work may focus on the mechanics of these emotions in a society, maybe this isn't what you're after.

John Wine

5uspect wrote:

I'm not freaked out by theists, only annoyed and confused at their failure to appreciate the validity of any other explanation other that what they were told. I would rather people think for themselves.

Do you claim that I cannot think for myself because I am theist?

5uspect wrote:

All of this work and all other scientific work generally treats these deep rooted emotions as simply chemical and mental reactions evolved over time to aiding survival of the species. Other work may focus on the mechanics of these emotions in a society, maybe this isn't what you're after.

If you arguing that theism and spirituality is only because of some chemical process in people's heads which is therefore not good enough to accept,
do you also think that people should not love their mothers?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

but.., we can prove scientifically their mother is real, and that she had a real effect on that persons life.

5uspect

John Wine wrote:

Do you claim that I cannot think for myself because I am theist?

Did you come up with the idea of God and Jesus yourself? Obviously you are well able to think for yourself, I'm questioning the notion that a particular view is accepted without need for evidence. I do not regard your intrinsic belief as evidence. I'm trying to say that a theist accepts their religious convictions as truth or at least a better than just an idea without any grounds for doing so.

John Wine wrote:

If you arguing that theism and spirituality is only because of some chemical process in people's heads which is therefore not good enough to accept,
do you also think that people should not love their mothers?

We all feel these feelings of love, hate and happiness, some are stronger than others. Theism and spirituality are products of the interaction of these emotions and the rationalizing inside your head.

I'm arguing that theism and spirituality are a consequence of evolved mental states, just as racism, love and fear. We believe that racism is wrong, we believe that love is good. Why? because we have been around long enough to see their effects. We actively decide that racism is a bad thing even though we still may harbour some prejudices. Fear is different, it is generally good to be afraid of fire, guns etc but bad to be afraid of going outside or eating. Fear of something is also something that is learned, love for your mother for example is essentially part of us as Harlow showed. Religion, theism and spirituality are like fear, they can have benefits but we can now objectively identify these and move on safe in the knowledge that guns and fire are dangerous but need not fear them damning us to eternity.

John Wine

5uspect wrote:

I do not regard your intrinsic belief as evidence.

You don't have to.

5uspect wrote:

We all feel these feelings of love, hate and happiness, some are stronger than others. Theism and spirituality are products of the interaction of these emotions and the rationalizing inside your head.

I'm arguing that theism and spirituality are a consequence of evolved mental states, just as racism, love and fear. We believe that racism is wrong, we believe that love is good. Why? because we have been around long enough to see their effects. We actively decide that racism is a bad thing even though we still may harbour some prejudices. Fear is different, it is generally good to be afraid of fire, guns etc but bad to be afraid of going outside or eating. Fear of something is also something that is learned, love for your mother for example is essentially part of us as Harlow showed.

I agree with most of that. I don't know if theism and spirituality are evolved or pre programmed. All I know is I have it, I accept it and enjoy it.

5uspect wrote:

Religion, theism and spirituality are like fear, they can have benefits but we can now objectively identify these and move on safe in the knowledge that guns and fire are dangerous but need not fear them damning us to eternity.

Well I disagree. I can't move on. I don't want to move on. I see no reason to move on. I prefer to live with my theism, thanks.
Now can we get back to OP.
We've established that theists don't freak out most people in this forum and fundies who are biggots do?
What about those that are in between?
Priests or Ministers for example? Or Fundies who are not biggots?
Does thes people freak you or anyone out and why so?

John Wine

Mordeth wrote:

but.., we can prove scientifically their mother is real, and that she had a real effect on that persons life.

That's a bit different to unconditional love. Can we stick to OP please?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

no, love between a mother and a child is not always unconditional. do you really think you'd have the same amount of love for your mother if she went on a three month killing spree? if she killed your children, stripped you bare ass naked and whipped you up and down grafton st?

all love is conditional, whatever your intrinsic evidence tells you

John Wine

Mordeth wrote:

no, love between a mother and a child is not always unconditional. do you really think you'd have the same amount of love for your mother if she went on a three month killing spree? if she killed your children, stripped you bare ass naked and whipped you up and down grafton st?

all love is conditional, whatever your intrinsic evidence tells you

Again you go to extremes to make a point. I bet you "love" Richard Dawkins and Michael Moore.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

god damnit, I am not saying your mother WILl do that, or that I think she WOULD

but come on, unconditional means UNconditional.. without any conditions. Can you honestly say that you would still have the same love fgor your mother IF SHE WERE to do some or all of those things? Of COURSE I am using extreme examples because someones mother would have to do something extreme to change the conditions of love

Science H. Logic!
read a book! not the bible!

my head hurts, yes I love richard dawkins. I think michael moore is a fat idiot

John Wine

Mordeth wrote:

god damnit, I am not saying your mother WILl do that, or that I think she WOULD

but come on, unconditional means UNconditional.. without any conditions. Can you honestly say that you would still have the same love fgor your mother IF SHE WERE to do some or all of those things? Of COURSE I am using extreme examples because someones mother would have to do something extreme to change the conditions of love

Science H. Logic!
read a book! not the bible!

my head hurts, yes I love richard dawkins. I think michael moore is a fat idiot

Ok, well look at it scientifically, get a sample set of people who's Mother's have done what you describe and ask them if they still love them?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i hate you.
I quit.

5uspect

John Wine wrote:

I agree with most of that. I don't know if theism and spirituality are evolved or pre programmed. All I know is I have it, I accept it and enjoy it.

Well thats fair enough, I'm happy we found some common ground. If it works for you, fine.

John Wine wrote:

Well I disagree. I can't move on. I don't want to move on. I see no reason to move on. I prefer to live with my theism, thanks.

Now can we get back to OP.

Well thats the distinction isn't it?
People prefer to have their theistic view and not question it (I'm sure you do question part of it if not most of it but stop short of ever rejecting it).
You're asking if atheists are shocked or horrified or freaked by ordinary everyday Christians - most people we deal with every day. This seems like an indirect way of asking if we feel that we're better than other people.

I have no problem with everyday Christians, as I've said I'm confused by how they accept such beliefs but thats it. The debates that I have had with friends about religious belief start with them laughing at how I cannot believe in god and generally end with them not wanting to discuss their beliefs or shrugging out of questions I don't think they really care about or have thought about in any great detail. Most people just accept the religion they were fed as a child and get on with the frankly more important things in their lives. For example over in Germany religion is pretty much a dead duck but society is not much different to here where religion is not so much extinct. People in general don't worry about the ideology of the religion they were or were not brought up in.

As regards priests and ministers who actively pursue a role in their religions, well I'd imagine they follow their personal revelation of intrinsic feeling similar to those described by yourself to fulfill their understanding of the "big questions". Since you're here to discuss these things I also assume that you are interesting in figuring out why we are all here and is there a reason for our existence. I suppose the active atheists here are similarly interested in such things and in that regard we're quite similar but we differ in our beliefs and methods.

5uspect

John Wine wrote:

Ok, well look at it scientifically, get a sample set of people who's Mother's have done what you describe and ask them if they still love them?

Harry Harlow again.
He did precisely this to his unfortunate monkeys...
He found out that unconditional love did exist in baby monkeys effectively tortured by their mothers. All this goes to show is a strong psychological need for a mother in offspring. There is also strong evidence to suggest that such behaviour evolved in follow up experiments where generations of monkeys were breed without loving mothers, made pregnant and systematically abused their offspring.

Zillah

Mordeth wrote:

i hate you.
I quit.

*Looks around at the frowning moderators* What? We were all thinking it. He just said it.



Really, we have a clash of incompatible paradigms here. Whatever we say we're going to get an obtuse and disingenuous answer.

Scofflaw

John Wine wrote:

Ok, well look at it scientifically, get a sample set of people who's Mother's have done what you describe and ask them if they still love them?

Hmm. I think that by the ordinarily applied standards, I fail to love my mother. I prefer not to go into reasons, obviously, since they're personal, but I can say that they're a good deal less extreme than the ones Mordeth suggested!

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Zillah wrote:

Really, we have a clash of incompatible paradigms here. Whatever we say we're going to get an obtuse and disingenuous answer.

Well you'd have to ask me a question first?

Dades

John Wine wrote:

We've established that theists don't freak out most people in this forum and fundies who are biggots do?
What about those that are in between?
Priests or Ministers for example? Or Fundies who are not biggots?
Does thes people freak you or anyone out and why so?

I mentioned way back young earthers. That is fundies who may not be bigots, but wish to have children taught that the world is 4,000 years old and that geology, astronomy etc are wrong. These people are breeding stupidity.

Mordeth wrote:

i hate you.
I quit.

Technically I don't think it's an insult to say to someone you hate them. It probably would be if you were to say why you hate them.

Anyhow, tis moot now with Mordeth resigned from the thread.

Asiaprod

Mordeth wrote:

would it be considered a personal attack to tell him he doesn't have to worry about losing respect?

No it would be a fact. We all love to hear the other side of the coin, we don't like stupidity, such as the world is 4,000 years old and big cats ate carrion that was magically preserved. That does not earn respect and does freak more sane people out.

Zillah

John Wine wrote:

Well you'd have to ask me a question first?

I had a longer response half done but I've decided not to bother. I'm very slowly learning not to argue with the religious. Their views are like dividing by 0.

No.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

No it would be a fact. We all love to hear the other side of the coin, we don't like stupidity, such as the world is 4,000 years old and big cats ate carrion that was magically preserved. That does not earn respect and does freak more sane people out.

To be fair - not really freak one out directly. It's more like that feeling you get when you're trying to do something really fiddly - in this case, hit the single functioning brain-cell with a bit of logic at exactly the right angle to have it go in.

There's also the gloomy knowledge, in the case of Captain Capslock, that he will firmly grasp the wrong end of whatever stick you just handed him, and use this badly gripped implement to beat a dead horse.

Plus, he mixes his metaphors. I hate that myself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

Zillah wrote:

I had a longer response half done but I've decided not to bother. I'm very slowly learning not to argue with the religious. Their views are like dividing by 0.

It does seem that those with strong religious beliefs have reneged on their right to think critically for themselves. If the holy book says it's so, well then it is so. Doesn't matter about the evidence or in some cases extreme improbabilty or even impossibilty of said events.

I've lost count of the number of times a religious believer, when backed into a corner on some thorny question that they know they can't really answer, will resort to replying with some magical quote from the bible/quran/whatever you're having yourself, as if that trumped all other knowledge and evidence to the point of ending the argument. It's an intellectual cop-out of the highest order.

John Wine

aidan24326 wrote:

It does seem that those with strong religious beliefs have reneged on their right to think critically for themselves. If the holy book says it's so, well then it is so. Doesn't matter about the evidence or in some cases extreme improbabilty or even impossibilty of said events.

I've lost count of the number of times a religious believer, when backed into a corner on some thorny question that they know they can't really answer, will resort to replying with some magical quote from the bible/quran/whatever you're having yourself, as if that trumped all other knowledge and evidence to the point of ending the argument. It's an intellectual cop-out of the highest order.

When I have ever said the World is 4,000 years old, or referred to Biblical scripture, when backed into a corner?
I think it is some (not all) of you who have lost the ability to think critically.
You just seem to be throwing hate and anger at me. That is a bit different from critical thinking.
Why don't we stick to the point, which some of you like to avoid?
Do fundies who are not biggots e.g. Priests or Ministers freak you out?
And if so why?
What else freaks you out? Does the fact that murders and rapists don't get punished by God freak you out? That evolution is actually true so there is no point being really nice or not that much meaning to life?

Dades

John Wine wrote:

You just seem to be throwing hate and anger at me. That is a bit different from critical thinking.

If animosity is directed toward you it is because you are continuing to ignore any answers to your questions.

I will try to make it crystal clear. Theism, religion in general, priests, no heaven, no hell, no sky god meting justice to rapists, no "purpose" - none of these things "freak out" any atheist I ever met. They are accepted and there are more, real things in life to be concerned about.

On the other hand many atheists do have a general distaste of fundamentalist religious folk that, for example, might include creationists, bigots, right up to terrorists and so on.

John Wine wrote:

That evolution is actually true so there is no point being really nice or not that much meaning to life?

An atheist does not require a book or the threat of a god to be "really nice".

John W - I suggest your next questions be neither disingenuous or fallacious, and that you read the replies you have already received or this thread might find itself closed and you handed your coat.

John Wine

The Atheist wrote:

If animosity is directed toward you it is because you are continuing to ignore any answers to your questions.

I will try to make it crystal clear. Theism, religion in general, priests, no heaven, no hell, no sky god meting justice to rapists, no "purpose" - none of these things "freak out" any atheist I ever met. They are accepted and there are more, real things in life to be concerned about.

On the other hand many atheists do have a general distaste of fundamentalist religious folk that, for example, might include creationists, bigots, right up to terrorists and so on.

An atheist does not require a book or the threat of a god to be "really nice".

John W - I suggest your next questions be neither disingenuous or fallacious, and that you read the replies you have already received or this thread might find itself closed and you handed your coat.

I appreciate you are answering the questions, however some of the others seem to avoiding it.
Can we continue the discussion with respect to semi-fundies?
Note the difference between a semi-fundie and theist.
A theist - just believes in God, no religion is necessarily more right than all other religions. They may pick their local religion but that is just for the sake of convenience.
A semi fundy - a large sway to one particular religion. But does not belief all of it. For example, may belief in heaven but not hell. May accept the world is 4.5 billion years old, but not accept evolution. I.e. they belief 60 - 80% of the literature of their religion.

And just for the sake of completion:
A fundy who is not a biggot - Accepts nearly all of the literature of one particular religion (e.g. many of the characters on the Christianity forums)
A fundy who is a biggot - As discussed, a fundy who believes in hating Gays etc.

Dades

John Wine wrote:

Can we continue the discussion with respect to semi-fundies?

You can't try to fit all types of believers into boxes, but even if we could - I'm not sure of the point of the exercise.

There are all types of "fundamentalist" as there are all types of atheist. Nothing is black and white.

Zillah

John Wine wrote:

And just for the sake of completion:
A fundy who is not a biggot - Accepts nearly all of the literature of one particular religion (e.g. many of the characters on the Christianity forums)

As I explained earlier, I am discomforted by this sort of person because they show a capacity to believe in something that to me is absolutely absurd. Their belief says a lot about how their mind functions, and what it says about their mind is, to me, a very bad thing. I used the word alien earlier, and I'll use it again. Their thought process is alien to me, I cannot empathise with it, its like dividing by zero. I cannot understand how any sane human being can have a dedicated belief in something completely unfounded like that. To me they seem insane, at least a little.

And those beliefs are unfounded. "Internal evidence" is not evidence, its a feeling that has lots of very reasonable explanations that don't require the supernatural.

MrJoeSoap

John Wine wrote:

A semi fundy - a large sway to one particular religion. But does not belief all of it.

Did you make this up? I've never heard of a "semi-fundy", and would imagine that fundamentalism is a reasonably black or white issue, i.e. - you either are or you aren't.

John Wine wrote:

For example, may belief in heaven but not hell. May accept the world is 4.5 billion years old, but not accept evolution. I.e. they belief 60 - 80% of the literature of their religion.

So they will believe parts of the scripture but not others, a sort of religious pick'n'mix? Then I don't see how they are fundamentalist of any description, even with the "semi" prefix.

5uspect

What are you looking for? Is there a reason that you're asking these things?

John Wine wrote:

What else freaks you out? Does the fact that murders and rapists don't get punished by God freak you out?

Are you asking would we like there to be a god so that nasty people get punished? Thats not something I would like to see, obviously it is nice to see a terrible person see justice but I would rather see society change first so that such people would be unable to hurt others in the first place. And I'm not talking police state here. If we could wish our ideal god into existence why would we want one that punished the failures of others to help those more vulnerable?

John Wine wrote:

That evolution is actually true so there is no point being really nice or not that much meaning to life?

You don't understand evolution. Read "The Selfish Gene" by his holiness Professor Dawkins, which discusses how morality and being nice are good strategies for a species. Altruistic behaviour is an essential part of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

There's also the gloomy knowledge, in the case of Captain Capslock, that he will firmly grasp the wrong end of whatever stick you just handed him, and use this badly gripped implement to beat a dead horse.
Scofflaw

I've become too frustrated with him and his willful ignorance, I'm better off not posting on that thread as I'll only drag it down in flames.
I have to say tho you're patient and dedicated lot to keep posting and keep him in check.

aidan24326

John Wine wrote:

When I have ever said the World is 4,000 years old, or referred to Biblical scripture, when backed into a corner?

I never said you did. I said others do though.

I think it is some (not all) of you who have lost the ability to think critically. You just seem to be throwing hate and anger at me. That is a bit different from critical thinking.

No one is throwing hate and anger at you from what I can see.

Why don't we stick to the point, which some of you like to avoid?

Your original question was answered by several different posters and you still kept coming back with the same question. What do you expect?

Do fundies who are not biggots e.g. Priests or Ministers freak you out?

Firstly priests and ministers in general are not necessarily fundies. Some might be, but alot of them would not fit into the category of what we'd normally describe as fundie. You seem to be misunderstanding or misrepresenting what the word means. To be a religious fundamentalist is to hold extreme and very unmalleable views that adhere rigidly to dogma, and allow for little or no free thought or interpretation e.g a belief that the bible is infallible or that that the quran is literally the word of god. And to answer your question again, fundies don't 'freak me out', though I despair at their inexcusable stupidity.

What else freaks you out? Does the fact that murders and rapists don't get punished by God freak you out? That evolution is actually true so there is no point being really nice or not that much meaning to life?

Murderers and rapists get their punishment in this life, assuming they're caught. Admittedly they sometimes don't get punished enough, but I don't think even a murderer or a rapist deserves to fry in hell for all of eternity, do you? What crime could possibly warrant such an extreme punishment? According to fundies, that's the fate that awaits me for merely excercising my right to choose, a right granted me (according to their beliefs) by the same god who would condemn me to an eternal hell for simply using the mind I was given. Can you begin to see the stupidity of this way of thinking?

Your last question is one that is levelled at atheists on a regular basis. "Oh but if it's all so 'meaningless' why do you bother at all?"

The basis of human morality does not come from religion, it comes from evolution itself. An atheist sees plenty of reasons to be nice in this world, and doesn't need the threat of hellfire to do so. In my experience this is one of the most common misunderstandings of religious people towards atheists. That life for us has no 'meaning'. On the contrary, an atheist view is to grasp life as it is, good or bad, in the knowledge that that's all there is or ever will be. There won't be an afterwards.

Life does lack meaning in an overall sense, there doesn't appear to be a 'purpose' to any of it, in the way that we humans normally need a reason or purpose to do something. But why should there be? We are projecting a human feeling onto a Universe that wouldn't appear too concerned with our trivial needs.

Zillah

Good post Aidan, and I must agree (repeat ad infinitum) the great moral confusion.

The religious often have a bizarre and very incorrect notion that morality is somehow exclusively derived from religion.

On the contrary, I've found most Atheists to have a far more developed and responsible moral system than most believers, as they've taken responsibility for their own morality and have been forced to think of it in terms outside of "God says..."

The believer obeys, the Atheist decides. Assuming God (if he even exists) is not in constant contact with all the religious leaders of the world, which of those options is the more responsible?

EDIT:

Final point. It would disturb me horribly if God did punish all the murderers and rapists. Morality is a relative human construct. If God has His own objective morality then he's a horrible tyrant and I'd defy him anyway.

John Wine

Zillah wrote:

The believer obeys, the Atheist decides.

I wouldn't agree with that.
I have decided to go with intrinsic evidence you have obeyed your "logical" faculties.

Zombrex

Most atheists and secularists are concerned (not sure I would use the term "freaked out") by fundamentalist religious following because history as taught us that fundamentalists religious following can be very damaging to society (fundamentalist following of any kind can be very damaging to society).

If you feel you can be a devout fundamentalist Christian (or what ever you are) on your own without this belief negatively effecting your relationships with others in society who may not share your point of view, thats great good for you.

But you are in the tiny minority of fundamentalists. The vast majority of fundamentalists, be they Christian, Muslims or what ever, seek to spread, often through force, their religious teachings to society as a whole. This is actually human nature, the need to re-affirm belief structure by imposing it upon others. If everyone believes it then I'm am right to believe it. The types of people attracted to fundamentalists movements are also the type of people who require this re-affirming of their beliefs.

Again, if this isn't you that is great, but you are in the minority.

This greatly concerns secularists, including atheists, who believe that religion should be a private matter and that religious practice or dogma should not be forced upon others.

John Wine

Wicknight wrote:

Most atheists and secularists are concerned (not sure I would use the term "freaked out") by fundamentalist religious following because history as taught us that fundamentalists religious following can be very damaging to society (fundamentalist following of any kind can be very damaging to society).

If you feel you can be a devout fundamentalist Christian (or what ever you are) on your own without this belief negatively effecting your relationships with others in society who may not share your point of view, thats great good for you.

But you are in the tiny minority of fundamentalists. The vast majority of fundamentalists, be they Christian, Muslims or what ever, seek to spread, often through force, their religious teachings to society as a whole. This is actually human nature, the need to re-affirm belief structure by imposing it upon others. If everyone believes it then I'm am right to believe it. The types of people attracted to fundamentalists movements are also the type of people who require this re-affirming of their beliefs.

Again, if this isn't you that is great, but you are in the minority.

This greatly concerns secularists, including atheists, who believe that religion should be a private matter and that religious practice or dogma should not be forced upon others.

Yes I would agree with most of that.
If you don't force your dogma on someone that's the crux of the matter, well then it shouldn't really matter what your dogma is as long as it's not illegal

Dades

John Wine wrote:

If you don't force your dogma on someone that's the crux of the matter, well then it shouldn't really matter what your dogma is as long as it's not illegal

That is the crux.

Of course many secularists wish the idea of not "forcing your dogma on someone" be expanded to include all children. I don't see the problem unless the teachings are destructive to the childs education or worldview.

pH

What 'scares me'?

... I've yet to meet a theist who doesn't believe he has a God given right to force others to live under morales 'given' to him by his god.

Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP) has passed a bill setting up a Taleban-style department under a cleric to enforce Islamic morality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6143754.stm

... The fact the he's very unlikely to believe those morales apply to him
http://www.tedhaggard.com/

... The obsession these churches have to get their hands on children
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6089440.stm

I can tolerate most of these theists' ignorance in believing that God exists, but not the arrogance of knowing what he thinks and wants.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Final point. It would disturb me horribly if God did punish all the murderers and rapists. Morality is a relative human construct. If God has His own objective morality then he's a horrible tyrant and I'd defy him anyway.

See you on the left hand of God, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

The Atheist wrote:

That is the crux.

Of course many secularists wish the idea of not "forcing your dogma on someone" be expanded to include all children. I don't see the problem unless the teachings are destructive to the childs education or worldview.

I think religion is good for kids even if you are atheist.
A lot of it is a moral / ethical framework explained in simple terms, and most of it I reckon 80% of NT and teachings of JC would be consistent with humanism.
It helps provide a world view, as the majority of the world are theists of some sort and they will make up their own mind in later life anyway.
I don't think you can teach atheism, as it is a rejection of theism, so you have to some understanding of theism in the first place.

Zombrex

John Wine wrote:

A lot of it is a moral / ethical framework explained in simple terms, and most of it I reckon 80% of NT and teachings of JC would be consistent with humanism.

You could just teach humanism them, and leave Jesus out of it all together. As a lot of atheists like to point out Jesus didn't say anything that hadn't been said already in either a better or clearer way.

John Wine wrote:

I don't think you can teach atheism, as it is a rejection of theism, so you have to some understanding of theism in the first place.

To "teach" atheism you simply teach everything, such as ethics, morality, science, history etc etc without referencing God as being a real thing. You end up with an atheist, by default. If theism didn't exist everyone would be atheists, though they wouldn't realise it.

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

To "teach" atheism you simply teach everything, such as ethics, morality, science, history etc etc without referencing God as being a real thing. You end up with an atheist, by default. If theism didn't exist everyone would be atheists, though they wouldn't realise it.

And I will bet that someone, somewhere, starts a religion. Its a circle we have not yet leaned to break away from.

John Wine

Wicknight wrote:

You could just teach humanism them, and leave Jesus out of it all together. As a lot of atheists like to point out Jesus didn't say anything that hadn't been said already in either a better or clearer way.

I don't know about that. You are correct saying there are many other philosophers who have written about ethics, but it's usually quite verbose and quite difficult to understand.
JC puts it across nice and simple.

To "teach" atheism you simply teach everything, such as ethics, morality, science, history etc etc without referencing God as being a real thing. You end up with an atheist, by default. If theism didn't exist everyone would be atheists, though they wouldn't realise it.

Yes but then they would haven't thought about their atheism critically.

Rev Hellfire

Asiaprod wrote:

And I will bet that someone, somewhere, starts a religion. Its a circle we have not yet leaned to break away from.

I think it’s a safe bet to assume you will always have people who will wish to delegate their responsibility for their actions and/or predicament to an external force. That’s not to even begin to include those who grasp at ‘miracles’ in their hour of need.
If (assuming it could be done) the belief in a supernatural interventional deity could be expunged from society as a whole another construct similar to ‘religion’ would appear. The question though is what will replace it any better ?