Obstacles to dialogue about religion:

[guillaumeb]

There is a recent post that asked what is accomplished by the constant dialogue in this forum.

Some responders admitted that no conversion is likely to take place. But even if one were to admit of a possibility of conversion, it seems to me that there is one huge obstacle to any actual dialogue.

That obstacle is the tendency of some few here to treat any argument in favor of religion as a childish argument, and as evidence of rejection of knowledge in favor of superstition.

That position requires the complete rejection of the non-overlapping magisteria argument in favor of demanding proof from believers of the truth of their beliefs. Forcing believers to argue in scientific terms. And I understand the motive behind this tactic because it allows non-believers to feel that they have proven something, or won a debate.

The main obstacle to dialogue, the condescending attitude, is often phrased quite overtly, as any reading of some of the posts here will reveal, but often it is more of a sub-text when a poster chooses to write with a veneer of politeness and tolerance.

And it has been my experience that this attitude is most often demonstrated by one side of this debate.

I am a Christian who freely admits that faith is a belief in the unprovable.

And in debate here, I will not mock atheists for their own unprovable position, nor will I dismiss their arguments as childish, or uninformed, because I believe that such tactics alienate people.

[BigmanPigman]

1. I don't get your point.

What do you want to discuss? Can you be more specific?

[guillaumeb]

2. The attitude of some.

Specifically:

The main obstacle to dialogue, the condescending attitude, is often phrased quite overtly, as any reading of some of the posts here will reveal, but often it is more of a sub-text when a poster chooses to write with a veneer of politeness and tolerance.

[Voltaire2]

3. like referring to your opponents as "the choir"?

That condescending attitude?

[guillaumeb]

4. That is an observation,

and it is shared by others here.

[Voltaire2]

5. right. So your op is self reflection on your own misbehavior. Well that is a start.

Who knows, perhaps in 300,000 years or so you might come around.

[guillaumeb]

8. It is misbehavior to point out the obvious?

No, that is not misbehavior.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. Well, if "others here" have observed it, it's totally justified.

I guess, then, you wouldn't mind me talking about what "others here" have observed about you?

[guillaumeb]

10. It is obvious.

As to justified, that depends of course on the poster.

[marylandblue]

87. Since when does justification have to do with poster?

Last edited Sun Dec 24, 2017, 10:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Justification is something you tell to an audience. If it were solely up to each of us, we'd always find justification in our minds.

[Lordquinton]

7. Main obstacle is religious privlige

And your last line, is that a new resolution? Cause it would be a novel thing to see.

[guillaumeb]

9. Fee free to post examples. eom

[Lordquinton]

38. You must recognise it in yourself

That everything is based from a religious perspective is the core.

[guillaumeb]

41. And that proves what exactly,

other than as a theist I post from a theistic perspective?

I once though that I could be an atheist, but after some soul searching, I realized that I was wrong.

[guillaumeb]

11. So religious priviledge forces some non-theists to condescend?

THAT is an interesting bit of explanation for non-theistic intolerance.

[Lordquinton]

43. No

Years of being condescended to by the religiously privileged makes on want to just let some steam off, but those moments are pounced upon and held as the norm. Meanwhile religion enshrines intolerance and has it excused as "belief" and it's hand-waved away.

Your privilege is keeping you from seeing it from an objective angle, this whole debate didn't start last tuesday, as you like to base all your arguments from, it's centuries, millennia of oppression from the religious, and only the last hundred years that the non-religious have been free to exist openly.

[guillaumeb]

47. If you are insulted for your positions, I would defend your right.

And I have done so in my private life.

I never attempt to attack non-theists for their positions. While I disagree with the non-theistic perspective, it is, in my opinion, obviously a valid perspective.

Are some theists intolerant? My numerous "bad news" posts here should be evidence that I am well aware of the disgusting intolerance directed against non-theists.

But, as I have noted, intolerance is a human failing not limited to theists.

[trotsky]

98. So what forces some theists to condescend and be such assholes?

Including telling atheists what they believe, or making bullshit lies up, or insulting non-theists?

Tell me, gil. What forces them? What makes them so insecure, despite still making up a majority of the population (which those same insecure theists LOVE to point out, as if argumentum ad populum was a valid observation)? Why are they so threatened by what a few non-believers say on an anonymous Internet discussion board?

[trotsky]

97. This is correct.

The privileged, true to form, simply deny it exists.

[guillaumeb]

102. So atheists are forced to behave as they do?

Interesting way to evade and avoid responsibility.

[trotsky]

104. By bigoted theists, yes. n/t

[guillaumeb]

105. The other person made me do this!!!!

I would suggest that you not use this as a defense or a justification.

[trotsky]

106. When a bigoted theist decides s/he is going to define atheism over the objections of atheists...

s/he has lost any right to be treated respectfully.

[guillaumeb]

107. As a non-bigoted theist, I understand your point. eom

[trotsky]

108. Great, so we won't see you defining atheism as a "belief"? n/t

[Binkie The Clown]

12. Obstacle to dialogs about unicorns: Some people just don't take them seriously. nt

[guillaumeb]

13. Exactly.

Thank you for the response.

[longship]

14. Start with a presumption that religion is true...

which kind of puts the emphasis on the wrong foot.

Then, there's the quote about NdGT in your sig line. (By the way, his name is spelled Neil, not Neal.)

If there is one thing humans can learn is that the mixture of religion and science, or religion and government/politics, is universally a toxic mix. It has never ever worked out for the good of anybody. Never!

Believe what you want. I won't complain. But keep it to yourself. Let the rest of the world decide for themselves.

And fix your sig line, for Christ sakes! I suggest deleting it, because it is bearing false witness.

[guillaumeb]

15. If I noted every spelling and/or grammatical error that I see,

I could make it a full time occupation. But I will edit it.

As to your response, specifically:

If there is one thing humans can learn is that the mixture of religion and science, or religion and government/politics, is universally a toxic mix. It has never ever worked out for the good of anybody. Never!

it represents an interesting opinion, and springs from your personal premise. I understand that you probably feel that your opinion is correct, as must people do, but it is an unprovable statement.

As to usage, I would have used the word could rather than can in the statement, and add the word "it", thus it would have read:

If there is one thing humans could learn, it is that the mixture of religion and science, or religion and government/politics, is universally a toxic mix. It has never ever worked out for the good of anybody. Never!

Should learn would also work.

Again, thank you for the correction.

[longship]

16. Your quote about NdGT is odious.

That isn't the way science works, nor the way NdGT characterizes it.

IMHO, you bear false witness! And you dare to lecture this forum about alienating people?

My best to you, nonetheless, these holidays.

[guillaumeb]

17. My "quote" is simply my personal opinion.

Edited to add: Thus the attribution to God.

And it is a response to another sig line here.

And my post was about obstacles to dialogue in the form of demeaning and condescending remarks framed as actual dialogue.

Seasonal greetings to you as well.

[longship]

18. You state that you want to eliminate obstacles to dialogue?

Fine. Delete that sig line, for a start. I find it a complete mischaracterization of everything that Dr. Tyson has done, and has stood for. Beyond being insulting, it is a fucking lie.

Then, maybe we can have a more respectful dialogue. I would be happy to do that.

[guillaumeb]

22. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I to mine.

In my view, Tyson should remember that his area of expertise is one field, and remember that his comments in other areas are his own opinions.

I find his many arguments about religion to be insulting at best.

[longship]

24. Tyson is not known to state much about religion.

He doesn't even call himself an atheist. And as to his pronouncements about religion, they are concentrated in those areas where religion seems to tread into science.

So, the universe is less than 10,000 years old? Religious bullshit!
The theory of evolution is false? Religious rubbish!
Quantum field theory is bad science? Religious rubbish!
Etc. Etc. Etc.

When religionists cross over into the science magisteria, they are universally, and demonstrably, wrong.

And while Dr. Tyson truthfully admits that science doesn't know how everything in the universe works, that there are big problems yet to solve (hence, your blatant false witness), some theists have the unbridled hubris to claim to speak for God, like your damnable sig line.

So, either your sig line is lying about NdGT, or it is lying about God. There are no other logical alternatives. You will get no respect from me until you delete it.

If you want respect, you will earn it by not being a provocateur.

Thanks for your response.

[guillaumeb]

30. Consider the Tyson quote:

“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.”

So are we to believe that every scientist who happens to have religious faith faces an inner war? That religious belief and science cannot be reconciled?

Perhaps we should ask actual scientists who believe in God how they reconcile their supposedly contradictory beliefs.

[longship]

68. Tyson is correct.

The extent to which religionists continue to tread into the scientific magisteria is the extent that his words are true.

The solution to the problem is quite simple. Religion has to have no say whatsoever about what is true about the physical universe. The gaps in our knowledge are not to be filled with sky god Iron Age claptrap. The god of the gaps is not any god anyone should worship, IMHO. You choose yourself. But that is one helluva narrow ledge to hang onto ones belief.

Here's another issue...
If theists cannot specify their gods' characteristics succinctly and without treading into domains where they are neither welcome nor wanted, I don't see how they can make claims on being good.

Theists cannot seem to stand that there are people who do not believe like them. That's why they make outrageous statements and malign good people like in your sig line. Theism seems to take on totalitarian characteristics. Not a good sign as these things go.

It's not the beliefs that I object to, it's theists' behavior which I often find reprehensible.

Please delete your sig line and be at peace with us.

[marylandblue]

70. Your sig line implies an out of context understanding of Tyson's quote

It is part of a counter-argument against the "God of the gaps" argument, and as a historical argument, it has some merit.

[pokerfan]

96. I looked up the actual quote

Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.

Emphasis mine.

Imagine that. A completely dishonest quote-mine. I would say dishonesty is a major obstacle to any dialogue.

P.S. They use to do this same shit to Sagan.

[yallerdawg]

36. Your sig line is very funny and apropos!

They don't like your nomme de plume.

They don't like your sig line.

And they don't like anything in between!

And yet you persist! THAT is what keeps the dialogue going!

[guillaumeb]

40. Thank you.

My nomme de plume is actually my first name, Guillaume, followed by my middle initial.

Being a very simple believer, this makes it easy for me to remember.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

121. Read the context of the quotation right above this post of yours.

Still think it's awesome? Because then g would be supporting the god of the gaps theory. God has receded. We used to think thunder come from Thor. It doesn't. That god recedes. It's not that hard.

[yallerdawg]

122. It's a humorous play on words!

Nothing more!

Faith isn't the only thing you don't have?

The faithless are sure a dour, serious lot. I'd have thought they would be free and unrestricted in their attitude towards life!

Oh well...

[tonedevil]

125. It is an ignorant attempt...

to put Mr. deGrasse Tyson in his place. The complete quote makes it quite clear he was not insulting religion nor those who practice it. If you read what he is saying it is that if something is not understood and God is used to explain that phenomenon if the thing is subsequently understood without God the dominion which has been claimed for God has been diminished. The logic of it seems indisputable to me, but even more it would give me great pause to be on the same side of an issue as Bill O'Reilly.

[yallerdawg]

126. Humorous play on words. Period.

[tonedevil]

132. Do you think calling it humorous...

is meaningful? Sure it's humor that's easy to say since humor is subjective and so funny to one may not be funny to another. Especially in the case of this sort of humor. While you say it is to be humorous I hope I am not saying anything controversial in calling it humor based on insult. If there is any point to the humor involved than to use Neil deGrasse Tyson's own words to show him to be arrogant thus taking him down a peg or two I would appreciate having that other point to be shown to me.
The problem with this is there is a huge difference between flatly saying "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance" and the full context that surrounds that sentence. That sentence is part of a larger conversation where God is being postulated as the answer for something that may not be understood at all today, but as history has demonstrated may be understood in the future. Can you deny that if you are claiming a God exists and is the explanation for things as yet not understood that when a more complete understanding comes about the result is the area explained by "God" has receded?
Use the mantle of humor as you wish, but in this case it is dishonest mean spirited humor.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

127. It's a pretty weak sauce play on words that takes the original completely out of context.

[yallerdawg]

128. You are killing me!!!

At this point, if I told you the sky was blue, you'd argue I was wrong ( "see night" ) !

[Cuthbert Allgood]

129. The sky clearly looks blue, generally.

I'm tempted to think you would say "god did it" to my response that it is refracted light causing it to look blue.

[yallerdawg]

130. It's just impossible for you to say...

"I agree. The sky is blue."

Am I right?

[Mariana]

19. Hey now. How do you know Gil is bearing false witness?

For all you know, he really is quoting God in his signature line. Maybe God really said that to him about Dr. Tyson, in a revelation. Gil might be a genuine prophet. Did you ever think of that, huh?

[longship]

20. I would not presume that. I take him at his word that it's his opinion.

However, there's still the bearing false witness, either for god, or against NdGT.

IMHO, given that it's his opinion, there are no other alternatives.

QED!

[Mariana]

21. Falsely quoting God would be extremely disrespectful to God.

I know Gil doesn't respect Dr. Tyson, but I would expect a Christian to respect God.

[guillaumeb]

23. So you are certain that the Creator has no sense of humor?

Interesting.

[longship]

25. Just delete your damnable sig line, and we'll start a respectful discussion.

[Mariana]

28. The character described in the Bible doesn't seem to have one

if the depiction therein is accurate at all. I wouldn't presume to make shit up about deities, even if they are fictitious. I prefer to go by the information in the source material.

[guillaumeb]

31. Or the authors did not choose to include examples. eom

[Mariana]

45. I prefer to go by the information in the source material.

The alternative is to make shit up - unless you are a prophet, and the Creator tells you things about himself directly. Are you a prophet, Gil? Have you received revelations about the character of your deity of choice?

[guillaumeb]

49. But if the information is open to interpretation,

Jesus attended numerous social functions. Can we assume that He occasionally laughed, perhaps even told a joke?

And if we are created in the image and likeness, a sense of humor is included.

[Mariana]

95. Created in the image and likeness.

Is that part of the Creation story to be taken literally?

I think it's much more likely that men created a god, in their image and likeness. That's why the stories describe it as having so many human character defects.

[marylandblue]

72. I'm certain he doesn't share your snide sense of humor

[MineralMan]

131. Assigning words to God is the very model of taking His name in vain.

Precisely, in fact. Putting words in God's mouth (assuming that the deity has such an orifice) is pretty much anathema to real Christians and Jews. There's even a commandment about it.

I've often wondered how doing so can be justified.

[marylandblue]

71. Actually, in the manner stated

longship's opinion is easily proven or disproven simply by looking at historical examples.

Also, in informal English, "can" may sometimes be used synonynmously with the modal "could," but rarely with the modal "should."
-signed, the Grammar Antifa

[guillaumeb]

99. Is can synonymous with could?

No.

[marylandblue]

110. Sometimes. Learn more English.

Native speakers sometimes use them interchangeably even when strict grammar says you shouldn't or can't. English is funny like that.

[guillaumeb]

111. I can do it indicates an ability to do something.

I could do it indicates that I can, but not that I will.

[marylandblue]

113. Can also indicates you are able to do something, but not that you will

"I can go to the store" and "I could go to the store," are synonymous

Don't argue points of grammar with a native speaker, or base your arguments on fine points of grammar when it's not your native tongue. It doesn't work, because native speakers didn't learn grammar from a textbook.

[guillaumeb]

114. I agree that verb forms in English are more "flexible".

Or less subject to any rules.

And relatively simple compared to French.

[marylandblue]

115. I won't argue French grammar with you

But you don't really believe me about English, do you?

[guillaumeb]

116. I hear many English speakers use things in different ways.

And the verb forms seem to vary by speaker. In French, certain situations require certain forms. And using the incorrect form indicates lack of education or unfamiliarity. In English it seems far more flexible.

And many English speakers seem to use present and future forms interchangeably.

So no, I do not doubt.

[Lordquinton]

46. I never noticed that sig line before

And he wants to you non-theistic condescension as a basis of an argument. Just more ridiculous every day.

[msongs]

26. if youre not a christian youre going to hell when u die? got proof of that ?

[guillaumeb]

32. Faith does not depend on proof.

It is belief in the absence of proof.

[Ferrets are Cool]

27. The dialog is this, I'm right and you're wrong. End of discussion.

Obviously, said from either side.

Edit: I was willing to listen to your diatribe with an open mind till I saw your sig, then I dismissed you as a know it all blowhard.

[guillaumeb]

33. Know it all?

Okay.

[Irish_Dem]

29. I would never try to convert anyone, I just like to discuss various topics

without being attacked or shamed.

Everyone is entitled to their own journey.
I like and enjoy the religion forum.

[guillaumeb]

34. I also like it.

Unfortunately, some feel that insults qualify as arguments.

[Irish_Dem]

42. Some people just want a bar fight. That is when to use the Ignore Button.

Last edited Sat Dec 23, 2017, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Don't match their energy.

[marylandblue]

73. You could also buy the other guy a drink

[Irish_Dem]

80. Great idea, had not thought of that.

We need a smilie for "I am buying you a drink so please settle the hell down."

The icon you posted is great, I don't see it on the DU list, but there are some with drinks.

[marylandblue]

81. At the end of the main list, there is a ...

Click on that, and you see more icons.

[Irish_Dem]

82. Thanks Maryland.

Actually I am going to use this the next time someone just wants to fight.

Coming from a large boisterous Irish Catholic family I should have thought of that!

[marylandblue]

83. You're welcome

[Irish_Dem]

84. :)

[cornball 24]

35. In my so very humble opinion and based on the various dialogues here on DU between

believers and non-believers, those of us who are believers have to tiptoe through the tulips when posting lest we be taken to task for a misplaced comma. Is it the need for intellectualism that dictates the polarizing commentary that I discern from SOME who post here who do not believe? Hopefully, our better angels shall prevail and we shall respect each other despite our positions.

[guillaumeb]

37. Nicely said, but my error was my error.

And I corrected it.

I think it stems from pride, and a position that humans will undoubtedly solve every mystery because some here have faith and a belief that scientists will do so. And that faith is somehow not faith, and that belief is somehow not belief because they wish it to be so.

PS:
welcome to the debate.

[edhopper]

39. the non overlapping magisteria often overlap

It is a faulty concept.

What part of religion should science stay away from. Can science question every event in the Bible that has no evidence as occuring?

[guillaumeb]

44. I can, and will, answer, but it is only my personal answer.

If one interprets every word in the Bible literally, and I do not, there will be contradictions.

If one does not, there will be none.

Faith is belief in the ansence of proof.

Science is concerned with proving things.

I see no overlap from my position.

[edhopper]

48. What about all the stories in the Old Testament

up to and including the Hebrew people coming to Judea?

What about the nativity.

What if those stories conflict with what we know from archeology and history.

If all the stories are myth and none of it literally true, where does that leave the belief.

[guillaumeb]

50. We are talking about stories from nearly 6,000 years ago.

How much primary source material do you think exists?

As to the nativity, it is a birth story. And, to my knowledge, Jesus had no birth certificate.

If some of the stories are myth, but Christians follow the message of Jesus, that is where the belief lies.

In my view, of course.

[edhopper]

51. The stories are either obvious mythological fantasies

or conflict directly with what we know.

"Who really knows what happened"is a cop out.

Non overlapping indeed.

[guillaumeb]

53. Yes, non-overlapping.

But the message still resonates.

[Voltaire2]

75. Or 3000 years ago at most.

You really have a problem with dates.

[guillaumeb]

100. The Bible is generally seen as referring to approximatley 6000 years ago.

Speaking of the Old Testament.

[Voltaire2]

103. Sure but that is not what you said. You said the stories were 6000 years old.

They aren't.

[yallerdawg]

52. We don't believe like Ancients did.

We have more knowledge, we're more advanced, we use scientific methodology, we just plain know a lot more.

But that in no way impacts the unchanging truth and mystery at the core.

A common theme of religions involves a "flood" story. We can find records of floods. We can find wreckage of large boats. We can imagine the Ancients gathered around a fire telling the story.

But it's not about the damn "flood." That's what the "Biblical Literalists" try to jam down everyone's throats.

There's a much bigger story going on here, a much bigger theme, a much bigger reality! From Genesis to Revelation!

Is that what you are missing?

[edhopper]

54. The story that a loving God

Last edited Sun Dec 24, 2017, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)

would kill every person, including innocent children, except for a single family because he didn't like how some used their free will.

Nice truth in that.

How about a God that was so jealous of a few people seeking knowledge he made men incapable of understanding each other.

Or how about allowing "his" children to suffer slavery for hundreds of years before rescuing them.

But of course rescuing them included infantcide.

What are the larger truths to these pure myths?

[yallerdawg]

57. Still hung up on the literal story.

Did you know the New Testament is the culmination of an evolution from the Old Testament God - a theme developed and promised throughout the Old Testament?

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."

[edhopper]

58. So only Christains have the real truth

Silly Jews only following the Old Books.

[yallerdawg]

59. The Jews are waiting for the Messiah.

That is their truth and their promise from the same source.

[edhopper]

62. So God actually talked to the people in the Bible

even though the stories aren't litterally true and none of it really happened.
But what God said is literally true?

And the God of the Bible is the real God and the Jews are waiting for Jesus, who was exactly what the Bible says he is?

[yallerdawg]

64. God talks to people around the world everyday.

The Torah is not the Christian Bible.

And the Jewish people do not consider Jesus to be the Messiah.

[marylandblue]

88. Do you mean he "talks" to people?

People hear Him in the rustle of leaves and what not, but do they hear quotables such the Bible has, or if they do, are they authorized representatives? If they do not, is it talking or "talking?"

[Mariana]

63. He asked, but you're not answering

"What are the larger truths to these pure myths?"

[yallerdawg]

65. "Seek and ye shall find."

But I'm not here to provide all the answers to every mind-numbing argumentative question you all can come up with.

I am not going to provide the answers to what you should be seeking - if you really want the answers.

[edhopper]

66. I did seek

and I found that God does not exists.

[Mariana]

67. "Seek and ye shall find"

has led to thousands of denominations of Christianity, each of which found different answers when they sought answers to their questions, and each certain that they're right and everyone else is doing it wrong. How does one pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe? It seems like no two Christians agree 100% where to draw those lines. This sure sounds like the result of guesswork to me.

[Mariana]

85. There are no innocent people.

That's a fundamental premise of Christianity, that ALL have sinned. The Flood story is a story about God doing a good and righteous thing.

[Voltaire2]

76. The thing about the flood myth is that it describes an omnipotent being who commits genocide

There really isn't any getting around that. The god described is an angry petulant god.

[demosincebirth]

55. Good post.

[guillaumeb]

56. Thank you.

Have a nice holiday.

[Angry Dragon]

60. not everyone is a believer or an atheist

you eliminate a huge section of "I do not know"

[guillaumeb]

101. True. Not a deliberate omission eom

[marylandblue]

61. Why should I believe in non overlapping magisteria?

[Buzz cook]

69. non-overlapping magisteria argument is kind of a dodge

While there may not be proofs of god that meet scientific standards, there should be proofs that meet the standards of whatever religion supports that god. They should be consistent and logical.

Gould divides the worlds into facts vs values. What values? How are those values derived? What is the commonality of those values among coreligionists? Are those values exclusive or not, if so why?

Theists have to make a workable moral argument if their realm is values. They also have to answer the Euthyphro question.

Just because you may operate in a different sphere does not relieve you of the burden of proof.

[marylandblue]

74. Good point

Religion has used evidence to support itself for thousands of years. It only retreated into ignoring or not needing evidence when the weight of scientific and historical evidence was no longer on its side.

[heaven05]

77. belief in a god

is based on ones faith in the actual existence of that god. Period. Mustard seed, anyone...I have a few, not many, anymore.

[duforsure]

78. We will always have the freedom to have our own opinions

The freedom to believe , not believe, or need for evidence will always be our choice and freedom that'll never be taken away. Now with that being said, its also clear all religions have been used to be weaponized against others using extremism and propaganda to demonize others, but again all religions have used this, as well as non religious groups. So, we have the freedom to speech, but not to do anything we want with it, and the same with being religious. Everyone has the right to choose, and be free to choose, and also not be forced to abide by others choice. Or be persecuted from others propaganda demonizing their religious beliefs as some now are doing in this country. Just because there are some extremists in religions , doesn't give anyone the right to take away ones right to believe as they choose, or doesn't give anyone the right to use forms of extremism with violence against those that don't. The same is true for using race to divide, or groups like the wealthy or poor, they are used to divide. My opinion on evidence is my choice to, and that's my choice to base my beliefs on, no matter who agree's or doesn't. Or the choice to not believe at all. Wasn't that one of the reasons why the people left their country, was escaping from a King,to have freedom of religion, and the freedom to not be persecuted. We should respect and accept all other religions and beliefs, not have someone pick and choose like a King or dictator does because THEY want to decide . That's undemocratic, and un-american. Maybe that's why they wanted church and state separate , and why some want it infused back into government, to divide us.

[Pythagorean atheist]

79. The biggest obstacle, it seems to me, is that folks speak different languages.

My wife is a Catholic, and I'm an atheist.

We can say the same thing, and it will come out sounding different on a superficial level, simply because we are expressing the thought in different languages.

(It doesn't help that her Catholic version is in Spanish and my atheist version in English, but that's just more of the same communication problem.)

Somehow we still manage to understand each other well enough to realize when we are both saying the same thing.

We are able to achieve this level of understanding because of our willingness to listen to each other without insulting the language and culture of the other.

[Mariana]

86. Religions tend to develop and use a great deal of jargon

that can be difficult for an outsider to understand, and many religious people seem to use an awful lot of euphemism.

[Mariana]

90. You can listen all day long

but if someone assigns a definition to a word that isn't one of the definitions in the dictionary, there are going to be communication problems. If people refuse to explain clearly, in plain ordinary language, what the hell they mean when they say [word] or [phrase], there isn't much to be gained by listening.

[Mariana]

92. I'll give you a hypothetical example.

If someone claims that intolerance of harmful ideas is "bigotry", this is an incorrect use of the word "bigotry" in standard English. If he's employing some kind of jargon that defines "bigotry" differently than the dictionary does, he should say so right up front, and not make people guess what the hell he's talking about.

[marylandblue]

94. Actually the motivation for not believing in non overlapping magisteria

is the observation that the magisteria do in fact overlap. Of course if religion is reduced to something so insubstantial as to lack a magisterium at all, then and only then do the magisteria not overlap, because something and nothing do not overlap.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. You don't get to claim my position is 'unprovable'.

[guillaumeb]

112. What IS your position? eom

[AtheistCrusader]

117. You tell me, since you seem to think you know all the properties of our positions.

"And in debate here, I will not mock atheists for their own unprovable position, nor will I dismiss their arguments as childish, or uninformed, because I believe that such tactics alienate people."

When discussing absolutes or positions that may not be provable, I usually call it out specifically, because I don't feel like shouldering the burden of proof for a position that is unprovable.

[guillaumeb]

118. If your position is unrevealed, what claims can you make?

If you are a theist, it is unprovable.
If you are an atheist, that claim, or non-claim as some would have it, is also unprovable.
If you are an agnostic, there is no claim or proof offered.

But all 3 positions rest on unprovable assumptions.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. There's nothing for an atheist to prove.

You continue to do the child with his hands over his eyes saying 'you can't see me' thing, and it's gotten beyond old.

To say 'I don't believe you' when you say your god exists, doesn't require proof on my behalf. I, and pretty much everyone else in here, is an agnostic atheist. You pretend we're gnostic atheists as if we have the same burden of proof you do. We don't. None of us are saying "Your god doesn't exist". I can't know that. I don't need to know that. It's not incumbent upon me, as an atheist to actually go ahead and prove that.

To REJECT your claim as insufficiently evidenced does not require that I then proactively prove that your god, and no other gods exist or have ever existed. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

I realize that leaves you in an uncomfortable position, but such is life for people who make claims they cannot prove. When I reject your claim, I'm not making a claim of my own. I simply don't believe you, don't believe in your god, and have no faith of my own. None of that puts burden of proof on me.

But of course, you know this. You just don't like it.

[guillaumeb]

123. I understand your need for this framing.

A way to contrast positions that are unprovable.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. Positions that are not mirror opposites no matter how much you pretend they are.

[Permanut]

133. Perfectly stated. n/t

[Cartoonist]

120. Here is the atheist's provable claim

There is no evidence God exists.

Got that, G? The above sentence is 100% true. No wiggle room, nothing open to misinterpretation. No one needs to say I have "faith" in that sentence. Every person on Earth knows it to be true.

So what have you got?