Dear theists, are you angry at me because I argue with you?

[Jobar]

Here's another article from the archives- this one from the Nov/Dec 2000 issue of Skeptical Inquirer- that is extremely helpful for those of us who have trouble staying on an even keel when interacting with believers.

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

Because senses and beliefs are both tools for survival and have evolved to augment one another, our brain considers them to be separate but equally important purveyors of survival information. The loss of either one endangers us. Without our senses we could not know about the world within our perceptual realm. Without our beliefs we could not know about the world outside our senses or about meanings, reasons, or causes.

This means that beliefs are designed to operate independent of sensory data. In fact, the whole survival value of beliefs is based on their ability to persist in the face of contradictory evidence. Beliefs are not supposed to change easily or simply in response to disconfirming evidence. If they did, they would be virtually useless as tools for survival. Our caveman would not last long if his belief in potential dangers in the jungle evaporated every time his sensory information told him there was no immediate threat. A police officer unable to believe in the possibility of a killer lurking behind a harmless appearance could easily get hurt or killed.

As far as our brain is concerned, there is absolutely no need for data and belief to agree. They have each evolved to augment and supplement one another by contacting different sections of the world. They are designed to be able to disagree. This is why scientists can believe in God and people who are generally quite reasonable and rational can believe in things for which there is no credible data such as flying saucers, telepathy, and psychokinesis.

When data and belief come into conflict, the brain does not automatically give preference to data. This is why beliefs-even bad beliefs, irrational beliefs, silly beliefs, or crazy beliefs-often don't die in the face of contradictory evidence. The brain doesn't care whether or not the belief matches the data. It cares whether the belief is helpful for survival. Period. So while the scientific, rational part of our brains may think that data should supercede contradictory beliefs, on a more fundamental level of importance our brain has no such bias. It is extremely reticent to jettison its beliefs. Like an old soldier with an old gun who does not quite trust that the war is really over, the brain often refuses to surrender its weapon even though the data say it should.
...
Skeptics will only win the war for rational beliefs by continuing, even in the face of defensive responses from others, to use behavior that is unfailingly dignified and tactful and that communicates respect and wisdom. For the data to speak loudly, skeptics must always refrain from screaming.

Finally, it should be comforting to all skeptics to remember that the truly amazing part of all of this is not that so few beliefs change or that people can be so irrational, but that anyone’s beliefs ever change at all. Skeptics’ ability to alter their own beliefs in response to data is a true gift; a unique, powerful, and precious ability. It is genuinely a “higher brain function” in that it goes against some of the most natural and fundamental biological urges. Skeptics must appreciate the power and, truly, the dangerousness that this ability bestows upon them. They have in their possession a skill that can be frightening, life-changing, and capable of inducing pain. In turning this ability on others it should be used carefully and wisely. Challenging beliefs must always be done with care and compassion.

Skeptics must remember to always keep their eye on the goal. They must see the long view. They must attempt to win the war for rational beliefs, not to engage in a fight to the death over any one particular battle with any one particular individual or any one particular belief. Not only must skeptics’ methods and data be clean, direct, and unbiased, their demeanor and behavior must be as well.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Unfortunately, not everybody is "equal" to God.
The biblical god states that He will call "his sons" to the ones who love Him and obey Him", the rest won't count.
I would do the same, because it makes sense.
Why a dude committing crimes will demand of being family of God, or be treated the same than others in front of God?
Why? Such doesn't make sense even here between men and human's laws.
You and I are humans, but it won't mean we are "equal" in front of God.
This word "equal" was given for humans the way to say we are not different species between us, we are equal the way we are formed. We must receive equal treatment in base of what we are physically, as members of the same species. Main laws are made to protect our species.
God discriminates.
Sure He does it.
Why not?
Regardless of whatever you want to say, if a neighbor is a known child molester who just came out from jail, you won't invite him to your ten years old daughter's party.
Your preaching of "equality" dies right there.
And you will do it by your own, without the help of a God who discriminates.
Period.

Wow a person who calls himself a humble man and yet argues against equality. let me guess, you come out ahead in this unequal world?

God discriminating should be based on character, conduct not based on religion. That is what Hitler did - ISIS did - and when you find yourself living under the likes of ISIS, you get immediate enlightenment, now you spout how we are all human beings, all are equal - "if we are cut, do we not bleed the same?" etc

You "love" a being that you have never seen, have no knowledge of, don't know if he or she or it even exists - all you have are books telling you x or y is God?

As for obey - that is the key word. If you had read my entire post instead of skimming it you would see that i have addressed that idea - your religion was born when Kings ruled and your religion made God in his image. Kings rewarded obedience and loyalty - naturally always worried about coups, about who is after their crown - obedience and loyalty was foremost in their minds and it paid them to reward the most loyal and obedient. Democracy this is not, speak out against the King/Dictator/Strong man and you are looking at death in the face

You live in a democracy, you are fortunate that you live in i assume the US where you can make fun of the president and nothing happen will happen to you. Others are not so lucky - journalists are being killed all over the world - try Caruana Galizia - for speaking up & yet when it comes to religion you support a Dictator/Strong man God

Every problem contains its own solution - if you want a Master God, then you become a Slave/Servant - down on your knees ready to obey

Other faiths will teach their followers to be Children of God - remain at a Higher level.

It's a choice - Child of God or a Slave of God? You have chosen to be the latter

 

[Ramaraksha]

God discriminates.

Sure He does it.

Why not?

He can, sure. Just don't pretend, then, that he's a loving god, if he only wants to save those that laud praise upon him.
If one of my kids kisses my ass, and one of my kids tells me to fuck off, and both of them get arrested, I'm going to hire lawyers for both of them, out of love for people I'm responsible for. I'm not such a whiny, self-centered ass as to decide that one of them is no longer worth my time because he doesn't praise me.

That's the difference - you are reacting as a Parent, whereas the Christian God was made in the image of the local King/Master/Strong man. Kings/Masters/Strongmen don't care for their subjects, all they care about is there own safety, their well-being. Those who grovel to them, obey and assure them of their loyalty are rewarded and that is what we see here. Honestly, in the 21st century Master/Slave religions are dominant. What a sad statement of humanity

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

God discriminates.

Sure He does it.

Why not?

He can, sure. Just don't pretend, then, that he's a loving god, if he only wants to save those that laud praise upon him.
If one of my kids kisses my ass, and one of my kids tells me to fuck off, and both of them get arrested, I'm going to hire lawyers for both of them, out of love for people I'm responsible for. I'm not such a whiny, self-centered ass as to decide that one of them is no longer worth my time because he doesn't praise me.

That's the difference - you are reacting as a Parent, whereas the Christian God was made in the image of the local King/Master/Strong man. Kings/Masters/Strongmen don't care for their subjects, all they care about is there own safety, their well-being. Those who grovel to them, obey and assure them of their loyalty are rewarded and that is what we see here. Honestly, in the 21st century Master/Slave religions are dominant. What a sad statement of humanity

Even with grovelling, if a follower believes that natural disasters are the work of their god in anger, believers are not necessarily exempt from the impact, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Learner]

Dear theists, are you angry at me because I argue with you?

No, we are arguing with you too!

(I should have said )

 

[Learner]

Every problem contains its own solution - if you want a Master God, then you become a Slave/Servant - down on your knees ready to obey

Other faiths will teach their followers to be Children of God - remain at a Higher level.

It's a choice - Child of God or a Slave of God? You have chosen to be the latter

Chosen the latter : what you like to believe of other faiths and the relationship of children to God V Christianity.

Ghandi once said Christians were so unlike their Jesus ... I can see you are quite unlike your Ghandiji. (from an honest understanding perspective)

Unless to be fair..you actually do believe it. Although it would be your honest opinion- it will still be without the understanding (of the theology).

 

[humbleman]

Unfortunately, not everybody is "equal" to God.
The biblical god states that He will call "his sons" to the ones who love Him and obey Him", the rest won't count.
I would do the same, because it makes sense.
Why a dude committing crimes will demand of being family of God, or be treated the same than others in front of God?
Why? Such doesn't make sense even here between men and human's laws.
You and I are humans, but it won't mean we are "equal" in front of God.
This word "equal" was given for humans the way to say we are not different species between us, we are equal the way we are formed. We must receive equal treatment in base of what we are physically, as members of the same species. Main laws are made to protect our species.
God discriminates.
Sure He does it.
Why not?
Regardless of whatever you want to say, if a neighbor is a known child molester who just came out from jail, you won't invite him to your ten years old daughter's party.
Your preaching of "equality" dies right there.
And you will do it by your own, without the help of a God who discriminates.
Period.

Wow a person who calls himself a humble man and yet argues against equality. let me guess, you come out ahead in this unequal world?

God discriminating should be based on character, conduct not based on religion. That is what Hitler did - ISIS did - and when you find yourself living under the likes of ISIS, you get immediate enlightenment, now you spout how we are all human beings, all are equal - "if we are cut, do we not bleed the same?" etc

You "love" a being that you have never seen, have no knowledge of, don't know if he or she or it even exists - all you have are books telling you x or y is God?

As for obey - that is the key word. If you had read my entire post instead of skimming it you would see that i have addressed that idea - your religion was born when Kings ruled and your religion made God in his image. Kings rewarded obedience and loyalty - naturally always worried about coups, about who is after their crown - obedience and loyalty was foremost in their minds and it paid them to reward the most loyal and obedient. Democracy this is not, speak out against the King/Dictator/Strong man and you are looking at death in the face

You live in a democracy, you are fortunate that you live in i assume the US where you can make fun of the president and nothing happen will happen to you. Others are not so lucky - journalists are being killed all over the world - try Caruana Galizia - for speaking up & yet when it comes to religion you support a Dictator/Strong man God

Every problem contains its own solution - if you want a Master God, then you become a Slave/Servant - down on your knees ready to obey

Other faiths will teach their followers to be Children of God - remain at a Higher level.

It's a choice - Child of God or a Slave of God? You have chosen to be the latter

Your reply is full of ignorance.

Equality is just a dream, go outside and look, you will see homeless and people driving luxury cars... you will see a job opening and 200 people applying but the one who will get the job will be the one who knows a a friend a person inside the agency...

Reality destroys your message.

Hitler didn't persecute Jehovah Witness because religion but because the members of this religious denomination refused going to war. He didn't persecuted Jewish dudes because religion but because when Germany was in crisis after WW1 Jewish obtained richness based on loans and charging of interest, and while the majority was falling in debt the minority was getting rich at expenses of the needed. Here some words written by Hitler about German's reality in those years

""I would like here to appeal to a greater than I, Count Lerchenfeld. He said in the last session of the Landtag that his feeling 'as a man and a Christian' prevented him from being an anti-Semite. I say: My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

"The political leader should not estimate the worth of a religion by taking some of its shortcomings into account, but he should ask himself whether there be any practical substitute in a view which is demonstrably better. Until such a substitute be available, only fools and criminals would think of abolishing existing religion."

You later challenges the fact that leaders and prophets call God as "man of war" and similar expressions giving Him the character of being identified as male., Even the son Jesus called Him "Father", still you have doubts that such a god is rightly considered as male, you want maliciously to introduce the idea the biblical god "may be" female. Why have you choosen the absurd to make your point? Do you really think that such wordplay from you part makes you "smarter" in front of the rest? Lol.

From my part it makes you look a complete fool.

When you say religion was born when kings ruled, well, were those kings "invisible" for the rest of people? Hello?

About "democracy compared with other government systems, go to some countries of Europe and write and tell the Holocaust is false, if you get caught you probably will face even jail time. Tell me about "democracy and freedom of speech".

So, about one's right of choosing religion, you love football and use your vacation days to travel and cheers for your team, you watch games all the time, you only talk with people who have the same interest than yours: football. You cry when you team loses,you drink and celebrate when your team wins. They have faith that their team is the greatest, they spend lots of money buying magazines, clothes and more related to their team.

Are you against that? I ask because I don't.

Everybody chooses their own religion. Everybody becomes "slave" of their beliefs. Look at relativists believing in a time that doesn't exist. They are happy and defend their doctrines.

Others believe in money money, and such is where they put their faith.

Any objection from your part?

 

[Ruth Harris]

I am an Atheist Hindu - that's confusing, right? Basically it means that I depend on my actions as my base - i want to be defined(not judged) by my actions(Karmas) & not my beliefs

Okay, I have spent the past few days free time reading some of your posts, and doing a little research on the faith you claim.

And I have to say I am now more confused than I was upon first reading this. The first thing that struck me, of course, was the atheist claim. According to the dictionary, an atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. But in your previous posts you clearly stated that you believe in a God. You also stated in one post that atheists were "all about denying God" (the thread was titled Morality without God for those who want to know my source for this). I find myself at a point of experiencing cognitive dissonance given these two contradictory stances, and for the life of me I can't manage to reconcile them.

The second thing that I noticed is that your claimed faith allows - but does not require - a belief in God. This is once again contradictory to the name of your faith according to the dictionary definition of atheist. But it also allows for each person to decide what God's nature is, and what he is like. There is no standard on which to base your view. To me, this seems a little self serving as each person can decide what they want their God to be - or not to be, as it were.

I don't think there is any way I can have a productive conversation with you when I don't even understand how your faith works, or what your words mean to you. So at this point I am going to bow out gracefully from further discussions on your faith compared to mine, and wish you well.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

Don't Call Religious Believers Stupid (Tip 1 of 10 For Reaching Out To Religious Believers)

All 10 of those tips are excellent, IMO. Many here would do well to incorporate them into their debating style, I'd say.

Back in 2011 there was a good thread at Secular Cafe on those tips. Skills for Talking to Believers

I'd like to think that believers would do well to follow some of the advice there, too. Didn't someone once say something about speaking as gently as a dove, and wisely as a serpent? Good advice, whoever said it.

Good reading; I enjoyed both of those discussions. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. And yes, both believers and non believers would benefit from taking their advice.

And your quote is from Matthew 10:16. Jesus said this to his followers when he was preparing them to proclaim the gospel message to everyone. You probably knew that but yes, it is still good advice.

Thanks for your considerate attitude. We could all learn from that.

Ruth

 

[Hermit]

...each person can decide what they want their God to be - or not to be, as it were.

Leaving aside the issue regarding free will, this applies to Christians as well. If you took a trip from denomination to denomination, from sect to sect, from century to century, you'd be struck by the chameleon-like property of the Christian god. Adherents to that religion are quite adept at focusing on biblical text that suits them and ignoring the bits that don't.

 

[Ruth Harris]

...each person can decide what they want their God to be - or not to be, as it were.

Leaving aside the issue regarding free will, this applies to Christians as well. If you took a trip from denomination to denomination, from sect to sect, from century to century, you'd be struck by the chameleon-like property of the Christian god. Adherents to that religion are quite adept at focusing on biblical text that suits them and ignoring the bits that don't.

True enough. I should have explained better. Every other religion that I am familiar with has its scripture which contains a description of their understanding of God even if they cherry pick or ignore parts of it. This is not the case with the Atheist Hindu sect from what I can learn. There are no documents which attempt to explain how they should view God, therefore each person is free to create their own God.

Ruth

 

[Hermit]

...each person can decide what they want their God to be - or not to be, as it were.

Leaving aside the issue regarding free will, this applies to Christians as well. If you took a trip from denomination to denomination, from sect to sect, from century to century, you'd be struck by the chameleon-like property of the Christian god. Adherents to that religion are quite adept at focusing on biblical text that suits them and ignoring the bits that don't.

True enough. I should have explained better. Every other religion that I am familiar with has its scripture which contains a description of their understanding of God even if they cherry pick or ignore parts of it. This is not the case with the Atheist Hindu sect from what I can learn. There are no documents which attempt to explain how they should view God, therefore each person is free to create their own God.

What difference does that make in practical terms?

 

[Ruth Harris]

True enough. I should have explained better. Every other religion that I am familiar with has its scripture which contains a description of their understanding of God even if they cherry pick or ignore parts of it. This is not the case with the Atheist Hindu sect from what I can learn. There are no documents which attempt to explain how they should view God, therefore each person is free to create their own God.

What difference does that make in practical terms?

In practical terms? Well, my best explanation would be to point out that if there is no written basis for their idea of God, you might as well be trying to discuss music with a deaf person. They can simply say that their God is not like that, or they don't believe God would view something that way – and there is no solid reason for you to dispute that within their particular faith. At least the other religions have a text you can point to and ask where they are getting that interpretation. And yes, there are a million different interpretations by differing Christian denominations – but each one is based on studies done on the original scriptures so they at least have minimal validity and there is a basis for further discussion.

Ruth

 

[Hermit]

...there are a million different interpretations by differing Christian denominations...

Quite. So the difference in practical terms is...

 

[Jobar]

Don't Call Religious Believers Stupid (Tip 1 of 10 For Reaching Out To Religious Believers)

All 10 of those tips are excellent, IMO. Many here would do well to incorporate them into their debating style, I'd say.

Back in 2011 there was a good thread at Secular Cafe on those tips. Skills for Talking to Believers

I'd like to think that believers would do well to follow some of the advice there, too. Didn't someone once say something about speaking as gently as a dove, and wisely as a serpent? Good advice, whoever said it.

Good reading; I enjoyed both of those discussions. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. And yes, both believers and non believers would benefit from taking their advice.

And your quote is from Matthew 10:16. Jesus said this to his followers when he was preparing them to proclaim the gospel message to everyone. You probably knew that but yes, it is still good advice.

Thanks for your considerate attitude. We could all learn from that.

Ruth

You're welcome. (And yes, I knew. )

But let me say that, though I urge my fellow unbelievers to control their tempers and rein in their anger when talking to believers, I still understand that anger very well.

I imagine most here have read this before, but if you haven't, you should. Greta Christina: Atheists and Anger

Anger can be a useful servant, but makes a damn poor master. If we are to get any benefit out of our anger, we have to aim it most carefully.

When it comes to religion, there aren't many individuals against whom we can direct our anger and have it benefit us, especially those of us who are older and beyond the control of those suffering from religious delusions. Well, there are public figures, politicians and preachers of whatever sort, that we can profitably target; any of us can list any number of televangelists who deserve our curses. But figuring out how we can apply our anger to ones like that, in ways that will damage them more than it does us... aye, there's the rub.

I do think it may be good to consciously direct our anger at institutions, and at ideas. Again it's hard to know how best to do that and not just get our own bowels in an uproar- but sometimes it can be done.

I've often quoted Col. Robert Ingersoll, known in the 19th century as 'The Great Agnostic', because he always did an excellent job of attacking the ideas and institutions of Christianity, while still showing sympathy and respect for individual Christians.

So far as I am concerned, I most cheerfully admit that most Christians are honest, most ministers sincere. We do not attack them; we attack their creed. We accord to them the same rights that we ask for ourselves.

We believe that the frightful text, "He that believes shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned," has covered the earth with blood.

It has filled the heart with arrogance, cruelty, and murder.

It has caused the religious wars;
bound hundreds of thousands to the stake;
founded inquisitions;
filled dungeons;
invented instruments of torture;
taught the mother to hate her child;
imprisoned the mind;
filled the world with ignorance;
persecuted the lovers of wisdom;
built the monasteries and convents;
made happiness a crime, investigation a sin, and self-reliance a blasphemy.

It has poisoned the springs of learning;
misdirected the energies of the world;
filled all countries with want;
housed the people in hovels;
fed them with famine;
and but for the efforts of a few brave Infidels it would have taken the world back to the midnight of barbarism, and left the heavens without a star.

 

[Lion IRC]

Theists spend an awful lot of time complaining about the fact that we challenge their truth claims.

Can you name and shame them?
...oh, wait maybe you're talking about folks who aren't members here at TFF.

Anyway, I'm always glad for the invitation to proselytize...I mean 'explain' why I think the God conclusion is true - to anyone who asks.

 

[ruby sparks]

Originally posted by Ruth Harris

Atheists: Ever heard of Craig Stephen Hicks?

Wait a minute, thus far I've followed the conversation with some interest, but Ruth, you have to do better than this as far as your token violent atheist is concerned. Hicks killed no one in the name of atheism. Hell, police can't even find a religious motive of any kind. If you're going to condemn any atheist with a gun in a parking lot dispute as a killer motivated to kill by their world view, then we can count almost any Christian with a gun as being motivated by their religion as well.

Lest I point out that Hicks has a mustache? Like Stalin and Hitler?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled disagreement.

Dunno. Hicks looks to me (after Googling) as if he qualifies.

Personally, I might have suggested Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist Russia, or Socialist Romania, among others.

I don't think that only the theistically religious worldviews can be behind intolerance, violence, war and/or repression. An atheist worldview is also very capable, imo.

 

[ruby sparks]

You're welcome. (And yes, I knew. )

But let me say that, though I urge my fellow unbelievers to control their tempers and rein in their anger when talking to believers, I still understand that anger very well.

I imagine most here have read this before, but if you haven't, you should. Greta Christina: Atheists and Anger

Anger can be a useful servant, but makes a damn poor master. If we are to get any benefit out of our anger, we have to aim it most carefully.

When it comes to religion, there aren't many individuals against whom we can direct our anger and have it benefit us, especially those of us who are older and beyond the control of those suffering from religious delusions. Well, there are public figures, politicians and preachers of whatever sort, that we can profitably target; any of us can list any number of televangelists who deserve our curses. But figuring out how we can apply our anger to ones like that, in ways that will damage them more than it does us... aye, there's the rub.

I do think it may be good to consciously direct our anger at institutions, and at ideas. Again it's hard to know how best to do that and not just get our own bowels in an uproar- but sometimes it can be done.

I've often quoted Col. Robert Ingersoll, known in the 19th century as 'The Great Agnostic', because he always did an excellent job of attacking the ideas and institutions of Christianity, while still showing sympathy and respect for individual Christians.

So far as I am concerned, I most cheerfully admit that most Christians are honest, most ministers sincere. We do not attack them; we attack their creed. We accord to them the same rights that we ask for ourselves.

We believe that the frightful text, "He that believes shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned," has covered the earth with blood.

It has filled the heart with arrogance, cruelty, and murder.

It has caused the religious wars;
bound hundreds of thousands to the stake;
founded inquisitions;
filled dungeons;
invented instruments of torture;
taught the mother to hate her child;
imprisoned the mind;
filled the world with ignorance;
persecuted the lovers of wisdom;
built the monasteries and convents;
made happiness a crime, investigation a sin, and self-reliance a blasphemy.

It has poisoned the springs of learning;
misdirected the energies of the world;
filled all countries with want;
housed the people in hovels;
fed them with famine;
and but for the efforts of a few brave Infidels it would have taken the world back to the midnight of barbarism, and left the heavens without a star.

While I can admire Robert Ingersoll in many ways, it seems, to me, fairly obvious that he, and others who say similar things (thinking of a few prominent New Atheists for example) have at times gone too far in blaming religion.

The rest, about trying to be reasonable and well-behaved when disagreeing with theists (or anyone on almost any topic) even while being forthright and/or assertive, I totally agree with. If I wasn't at times prone to bouts of (a) annoyance, (b) exasperation, (c) whimsical cheekiness/lampooning or (d) sarcasm, I might be able to manage it better. One day, maybe, I'll be as admirably evolved as you on that front. It is my occasional intention to watch more Alan Watts videos, but I just never seem to get around to it.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Originally posted by Ruth Harris

Atheists: Ever heard of Craig Stephen Hicks?

Wait a minute, thus far I've followed the conversation with some interest, but Ruth, you have to do better than this as far as your token violent atheist is concerned. Hicks killed no one in the name of atheism. Hell, police can't even find a religious motive of any kind. If you're going to condemn any atheist with a gun in a parking lot dispute as a killer motivated to kill by their world view, then we can count almost any Christian with a gun as being motivated by their religion as well.

Lest I point out that Hicks has a mustache? Like Stalin and Hitler?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled disagreement.

Dunno. Hicks looks to me (after Googling) as if he qualifies.

Personally, I might have suggested Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist Russia, or Socialist Romania, among others.

I considered using your examples, but thought that someone currently in the news might be more relevant and acceptable. And as usual, I was wrong mainly because I neglected to explain my thought process for including him.

I don't think that only the theistically religious worldviews can be behind intolerance, violence, war and/or repression. An atheist worldview is also very capable, imo.

And that is precisely my point. This is not a religious failing; it is a human failing.

Thanks for jumping in and adding to the discussion.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

You're welcome. (And yes, I knew. )

But let me say that, though I urge my fellow unbelievers to control their tempers and rein in their anger when talking to believers, I still understand that anger very well.

I imagine most here have read this before, but if you haven't, you should. Greta Christina: Atheists and Anger

Wow. Just....wow. This is exactly the type of discussion I avoid, simply because there is no reply I can give that will make even the slightest impact on the original poster. There is no reasoning with that kind of anger. Note that I am NOT saying that I disagree with many of her points - but what good does it do to reinforce something that is nothing more than an out of control screed?

...those suffering from religious delusions...

And I find it very disappointing that you have used this terminology after your previous well thought out posts. This is not something that will engender good will on the part of any believer and incline them to listen to what you have to say.

Ruth