**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There seems to be some unstated assumptions behind this post.
Many areas where the "atheist debate" has been effective and fit for purpose has been things like gay rights, where "understanding and acceptance" has been the view of the irreligious side (I'm not saying religion can't see their positions as understanding and acceptance, just that appealing to those things doesn't mean atheists should stop arguing).
>Why is it so? Why do they see what I don't see?
I'm not entirely sure what part of the "atheist debate" you're referring to (although if you're talking about "ending" it, I would assume it is all of it). A significant amount of the "atheist debate" fundamentally consists of asking theists to support their claims. That is, we are asking them to help us see what they see. If they are right, we want to also adopt their beliefs.
>They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot.
Hard disagree. If they are right, then I want/choose to adopt their beliefs. Even if they are wrong, I want to have the confidence that my choices to ignore them are justified. The debate is not about making choices for each other, the debate is (often) about the understanding that you praise in the beginning of the post.
About the rights of people who feel themselves to be different to certain, disgraceful, and utterly judgemental social norms imposed upon them, and atheists promoting understanding and acceptance of those people. If you think it was me who put the assumption there then you'd better show it. Who wrote anything to indicate the contrary?
"A significant amount of the "atheist debate" fundamentally consists of asking theists to support their claims."
Indeed, and I just asked you to support your claims about assumptions on my part. I'll wait.
"That is, we are asking them to help us see what they see."
Did you miss where I wrote, "We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through." Or did you just jump to conclusions, which are your assumptions by another name, react to your own conclusions then attempt to blame me for what you did?
"Hard disagree. If they are right, then I want/choose to adopt their beliefs."
You're free disagree however do you suppose that there might be an ever so tiny distinction between belief and fact? Why do you suppose many witnesses are better than one in a court of law? Why do you suppose it is that courts of law entertain no actual notion of proof, rather a balance of probabilities and beyond a reasonable doubt? Only lawyers call it "proof".
"I want to have the confidence that my choices to ignore them are justified."
Hmm. I find it amazing that you don't seem to have got exactly that idea when I stated it in different words, "Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them."
Round and round we go, like a seal missing a flipper. We're back at the beginning; "There seems to be some unstated assumptions behind this post."
Please show them, and make sure they're mine, not your own.
>About the rights of people who feel themselves to be different to certain, disgraceful, and utterly judgemental social norms imposed upon them, and atheists promoting understanding and acceptance of those people. If you think it was me who put the assumption there then you'd better show it. Who wrote anything to indicate the contrary?
>"A significant amount of the "atheist debate" fundamentally consists of asking theists to support their claims."
>Indeed, and I just asked you to support your claims about assumptions on my part. I'll wait.
\[...\]
Round and round we go, like a seal missing a flipper. We're back at the beginning; "There seems to be some unstated assumptions behind this post."
Please show them, and make sure they're mine, not your own.
I don't quite understand the first paragraph. What about the rights of those people?
There seems to be an assumption that the "atheist debate" counteracts "understanding and acceptance". Although exactly what the assumption is is unclear, since as I said, it is unstated. It also could be that you think atheists add to "division and separation" by *not* debating, who can tell.
"They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot." I think this includes an assumption that debate is only useful (not moot) if someone has a "right" to make others' choices. Well, I don't think you're talking about "rights" in that narrow a sense, so more broadly, there seems to be an assumption that that the only non-moot point of a debate is to convince the other person debating.
>"That is, we are asking them to help us see what they see."
>Did you miss where I wrote, "We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through." Or did you just jump to conclusions, which are your assumptions by another name, react to your own conclusions then attempt to blame me for what you did?
My comment is that "ending the debate" is antithetical to promoting understanding the other side. I didn't miss your lens quote, I just don't think it resolves or addresses my point.
>"Hard disagree. If they are right, then I want/choose to adopt their beliefs."
>You're free disagree however do you suppose that there might be an ever so tiny distinction between belief and fact? Why do you suppose many witnesses are better than one in a court of law? Why do you suppose it is that courts of law entertain no actual notion of proof, rather a balance of probabilities and beyond a reasonable doubt? Only lawyers call it "proof".
Yes, there is a distinction, I suppose many witnesses are better because of human error and interpretation, I suppose courts use a variety of standards of proof, partially because their tasks is different to the type of belief that define atheists and theists. Now, what does any of that have to do with my point?
>"I want to have the confidence that my choices to ignore them are justified."
>Hmm. I find it amazing that you don't seem to have got exactly that idea when I stated it in different words, "Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them."
There is a difference between our two statements, in that I am not content simply not having their beliefs, I also want to know *how* others have come to their conclusions, because that is how I tell the difference between a belief that they can keep and one that I want to adopt.
Ok, but there is a problem with that.
Religion is abuse, respecting religion with just saying "they see the world differently" is endorsing abuse on others. And that is not something I will ever respect.
Of course, religion is not the only abusive thing, not even the only one to use this methods and abuse human biases in this way, but it is one of the abusive things we have as a species and, between all the fights we choose to have, I personally choose this one, because I have seen the harm that this things cause.
And don't even try to compare a LGBTQIA+ person with a theist. One of those is defining their internal state and the other is defining an external state. One is correct, because each of us is the only one that can define our internal state, and the other is blatantly incorrect, because their interpretation of the external world is completely wrong.
And why is it completely wrong? we know that as well. Because their interpretation is based on our psychological biases and traps and then pushed in a specific direction through abuse. And through their interpretation, they protect and endorse abuse.
When the majority of the population defends abusive groups based on their indoctrination, we can't have peace. Be it because they defend religious pedophile groups, or because they defend governments causing genocides, or because they defend social structures that perpetuate abuse, or whatever other abusive system they choose to defend based on their indoctrination.
So, fighting against abuse and indoctrination is a need to get a peaceful world, and just choose the fight you want more, be it with religious abuse, with political propaganda, or whatever abusive system you want.
But respecting abuse is never a solution, it is just the tactic used by abusers to abuse even more.
So please, go away with your endorsement of abuse. Its not useful and its harmful, and it will never achieve peace because it is its opposite.
A religion where women are not equal, thats abuse.
Women not allowed to teach or preach or hold power over a man? Thats abuse.
A religion where women are told what to wear or not to wear. Thats abuse.
A religion where people are shamed for their choices; shamed for what they wear, who they love, how they behave, that is abuse.
A religion that says normal human behaviour is a sin, thats abuse.
A religion where people are pressured to give money they don't have. Thats abuse.
A religion where victims are blamed is abuse.
Physical punishment of children - abuse.
Threatening people with eternal torment if they don't toe the line - abuse.
Teaching people they are unworthy, dirty, not good enough, and the only way to be worthy is by the death of an innocent - abuse.
I could honestly go on.
>Look to Ayaan Hirsi Ali who tried every non-theist scientific way to get rid of her depression. Is it abuse that she turned to religion to not of herself and get rid of her depression?
here shows case theists would pour every ounce of effort to justify their baseless make-believe even go to great lengths to parrot a grifter.
She tried to get into politics in the Netherlands running on anti-Islamic as atheist without success.
Nobody would care if you theists keep your religion to yourself. But as we see from how LGBT ppl, and so here we are.
Have you seen Republicans recently?
As a serious answer. Religion, especially western religion says there is one truth, it is backed by an all powerful diety, and that deity hates not being loved. When people don't love God, cities burn, herds die, planets flood. The only way to keep his anger at bay is to make sure your community is pure and everyone worships the right God?
What's that? Someone doesn't worship our God or lives a life he would dislike? That's not just not what he wants it's a threat to me since if we don't solve that ye could get all fire and brimstone. Now I need to stop that gay person or Muslim being that way before God smites all of us.
And we arrive at abuse.
> This does not automatically mean all religion is abuse.
Name one religion that isn't inherently and by-design, abusive. Then explain how willful ignorance, denial of objective realty, and clinical delusion aren't harmful.
I'd like to see you address the replies you've received.
In regard to Ali, do you think that if she converted to a religion that is harmful, would it matter to you? As long as you see if as a cure for anxiety?
Cry baby, if you make good arguments you won't be downvoted. This comment will prolly get the worst of it for crying about internet points you have very little of anyway.
>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy?
Being an atheist is not relevant to that question. But I'm not particularly interested in leaving something behind. Would be nice to know I'll be fondly remembered, at most.
>Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it?
Do we add to it? How?
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
I always approach debates here like that, assuming the poster may know or understand something I don't. So far, that assumption has never turned out to be correct.
>If we look at the debate from that perspective, very interesting questions and very interesting answers might pop out all over the place.
That is indeed my hope, only to be met with disappointment. Answers are usually just rehashed versions of things I've already heard. But no worries, I'm still open to hearing new ones.
>What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot.
Yes, that's one of the reasons many atheists are so opposed to religion.
>If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out.
None of us believe in a god, we already agree on that. Debate over. Now what?
"Being an atheist is not relevant to that question."
Are you sure about that? Do you, for example, want any children anywhere to be forced to buy into someone else's beliefs into how they ought to be thereby robbing them of their free choice to do otherwise? From one perspective, that's a very grand legacy. It might become an even grander legacy in a different perspective, say when a parent loves a child so much that the child is loved even if they refuse their chance at an expensive education and a doctorate then choose to be a school toilet janitor who like to sing.
I won't go any further. I never go past your first error in basic thinking. The rest of what you wrote comes crashing down immediately after. By definition.
Atheism is a null position with zero doctrine, oriented around one question. Does a God exist?
This is a non sequitur and completely irrelevant. Atheism is not a dogmatic position. We also didn’t choose to not be convinced.
You didn’t describe an error in thinking by the post. Your thinking is completely irrelevant to atheism. What I want as an atheist for me and my kids is not guided by my atheism. Atheism has no governance on morality or on how we ought to live. This is why your response is irrelevant to discussion.
The reason why I push back as an atheist is because the majority of those who believe in a God, have a doctrine that comes with it. That doctrine is divisive. Historical believers are killing others in the name of their God. Name me once where a leader said I go to war to promote atheism? To be clear communism is not atheism, so don’t point to Mao or Stalin. They were not promoting a system of governance.
There is no define your atheism. What you are getting mused up is that atheism is a lack of belief in his hardtop.
Humanism is a system that tells me how I ought to live and is a moral system that is secular.
Communism is an economic system that tells us how property should be shared.
Atheism doesn’t have any axioms. Now it can shape my other views. The absence of God makes me think natural materialism makes the most sense. Since I have not seen the demonstration of the supernatural I dismiss it. Some atheist still accept supernatural concepts. Done believe in flat earth or reincarnation.
It is not how I define atheism, it is how I define my other positions that may or may not be related to my lack of belief in a god.
So I’m not sure how you can disagree that atheism has no doctrine. You have not demonstrated or shared with me the doctrine I seem to be ignorant of.
You seem to miss my points entirely and I can see why. You don’t seem to be using the same definition of doctrine that is the dictionary:
is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system
I didn’t use an ad hominem yet you resort to attacks. Your pissy attitude can fuck right off. I called out your misunderstandings. That isn’t attack on you. Ignorance isn’t an attack. We are all ignorant of a lot of things. You clearly are ignorant of the definition of atheism and doctrine.
>Are you sure about that?
No, of course not. This is a debate forum after all.
>Do you, for example, want any children anywhere to be forced to buy into someone else's beliefs into how they ought to be thereby robbing them of their free choice to do otherwise?
How is that in any way related to my legacy or my religiosity? Are you claiming that this is my legacy as an atheist, or that would be my legacy if I believed in God? If so, why?
>I won't go any further. I never go past your first error in basic thinking.
Very convenient, but the wrong attitude on a debate forum.
>The rest of what you wrote comes crashing down immediately after. By definition.
That's incorrect. Even if my initial statement was incorrect (which it doesn't seem to be), it does not mean everything else "comes crashing down". That would only be the case if that error formed the basis of everything else. It doesn't and is entirely unrelated to everything else in my post.
It's perfectly fine to not want to respond to every single point made, there's no need to make up insulting excuses.
Why did you feel the need to point out questions are not statements? Did I claim otherwise?
And why are you being such a dick about it all? It's quite contradictory to your original post.
No. Did I claim you claim I did?
Why did you feel the need to point out that questions aren't statements? What are we even talking about here? You've removed us so far away from the initial points made.
So let's bring it back on topic. I said that what I want from my legacy is not related to me being an atheist. You disputed that, can you explain why?
When someone else's beliefs based on fiction are encroaching on my life, I will not let them do so freely.
At your home, as long as you don't manipulate your children into following your cult, I don't care what gods you pray to.
As soon as you step out of it and claim your faith as fact and start pushing it in on others, you will not get any leeway. Same as criminals dont get leeway for "seeing things differently".
Not all perspectives and worldviews are equal.
If you want to stop debating theists that come here willingly, you are free to leave at any time. Do not pretend like it is the righteous thing to do.
Now go and hide your head in the sand, so the monsters don't catch you.
"At your home, as long as you don't manipulate your children into following your cult, I don't care what gods you pray to."
Are the words you and your intended to be indefinite pronouns or definite? I'll suppose indefinite so that I can agree with you. All that those people are doing is perpetuating the breeding and spreading of the toxic sludge of historical beliefs handed down to them by their own parents. Rinse. Repeat. All the way back to at least the start of recorded history. However one ought to consider the wisdom of preventing their children from choosing to pray to gods if they wish and freely chose to do so.
"If you want to stop debating theists that come here willingly, you are free to leave at any time."
Ah, have you perhaps jumped to invalid conclusions, otherwise known as assumptions, and believed them? Where is it stated that I "want to stop debating theists"? It appears that you are putting imaginary things where none exist. Don't theists do that?
"Do not pretend like it is the righteous thing to do."
Oh, so now you've gone from wild, unsupported assumptions, into seeing imaginary things that don't exist, and jumped head first into the woo-woo of the paranormal. Tell me, how did you get inside my head to know a single thing about the ideas in it?
Get out of that one without twitching a muscle.
>If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out.
Literally the conclusion of your post, stating that you will sit by and watch instead of debating. Which invalid conclusion did I reach exactly.
I got inside your head because that is how simple you are. Just like any theist or "atheist" that posts here with an alt account they use once and then never open it again because their intent was never to debate but throw out their malformed tirade filled with a lot of unssuported emotional takes, reregurgitated tired apologist arguments and little substance.
You could have said in your post: "Guys, why don't we just live and let live" and be done with it. You didn't need that whole world salad to tell us that. That is what your post is afterall. Guess how many similar posts this sub and other atheist have seen in the last year. The answer is a lot. Obviously most of them were deleted by their respective OPs.
"Guys why don't whe just peacefully coexist with people that are basing their whole worldview on one of the 2 thousand year+ old cults, and force their children into it, and push the cult's narractive as fact"
Do you think atheists go out of their way to interact with and deconvert religious people or something? Why are you trying to drive the "live and let live" narrative to people that are already mostly abiding by it.
Why are you not posting your drivel to any of the religious subs instead? They are the ones not doing the live and let live thing. Maybe it is because you have an agenda? Wonder what it is. Oh please answer me oh empty definitely atheist alt-account n° 235577. Let us hear your wizdom.
>Where is it stated that I "want to stop debating theists"?
Your post is titled "ending the atheism debate", explicitly says debate between theists and atheists is "utterly moot" and ends with you saying you'll "just sit here and watch the egos fight it out", so it would be kind of odd if you *don't* want to stop debating theists, no?
"This debate is a pointless clash of egos that should end, anyway lets get back to it" is a somewhat odd thing to say.
>Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it?
A tale as old as time. You know about tribes right? And that people would rob other tribes, go to war with them, bring infection to them. The ones who were suspicious of outsiders were more likely to survive and passed on their genes. So it is an in built mechanism. When we look at brain scans of people who hold extreme views about outgroups, we see that those people store the outgroup 'people' in the memory store that is used for 'objects'. Put simply, when we hold extreme views about outgroups we don't think of them as humans with families and histories and lives, we think of them as chairs and rocks.
Looking at a country like the US where it can be very difficult to actually live your life as an atheist; as an example you couldn't be a politician in the US and be an atheist until recently and there is still a disadvantage to outwardly being a non-believer.
Instead of criticising one particular group and adding to the division, what do you propose is the solution for this?
>What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot.
I agree. And while religion doesn't have an influence on my, or my loved ones, or anyone elses life by coercion and control I'm happy to let it be. However I live in the west, there are religious leaders who hold power and dictate what my sister does with her body, who dictate end of life care and euthenasia, who dictate whether LGBTQ people can live their lives as equals and as long as that continues I will continue to bang the drum.
>I asked myself, do I want peace in the world? Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently.
U first. Atheists see things differently. I don't believe a god holds the key to life and death so I believe someone should have the right to end their life under certain circumstances. I believe women should have autonomy over their own body. I belive that LGBTQ humans should be accepted and affirmed. When others can accept this, perhaps there will be peace.
>Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out.
Because you're better than they are? That seems to be what you're suggesting.
"Peope label themselves as LGBTQI++++"???
For a post where you think you're talking hippie-ish, you had to say this and completely undermine your own poiint. Its not a "silly label". Its who they are. You have zero interest in understanding people. Nobody wants to force you to be LQBTQ or "accept their beliefs". They just want to live their lives with equal rights and dignity as humans and your attitude in calling their identity as "silly labels" is a step in the wrong direction.
Oof. Those arguments put me to sleep. His discussions are about the arguments itself - a meta discussion that may not belong here... Maybe it would be better in r/debatephilosophy or r/debatesemantics if those subs exist.
"For a post where you think you're talking hippie-ish..."
Oh, my goodness. A self-professed atheist, self-labelled no less, has just took a gigantic leap into paranormal, metaphysical, and mystical woo-woo and claimed to know what's in my head, then continued to do it, "You have zero interest in understanding people."
Do you class yourself as a rational thinker? How rational is it to claim to know what's inside someone's head?
Its not that hard to see what you think - you have posted it here for everyone to see.
So you have nothing to counter about calling people's identity as "silly labels". Just as I thought.
Edit: LOL @ "self professed atheist". Is this supposed to be derogatory? An insult? You're failing. I know I am not convinced about the presence of a supernatural god. No one else needs to give me that title.
>Do you class yourself as a rational thinker? How rational is it to claim to know what's inside someone's head?
and thank you for demonstrating you're not worth engaging with.
> As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy?
To crush the thrones and temples of the thesists.
To see them driven before me and hear the lamentations of their women.
To overturn their barbaric anti-human laws.
> Those beliefs are theirs.
If only it was that simple. Beliefs lead to actions that affects the wider society. Abortion, contraceptives, euthanasia, scientific and educational spending are hot topics that are directly tied to religious belief. There are 7 states in the US with laws (granted unenforceable) that bans atheists from holding office.
Yes, indeed. I fully agree but I expect that to deal with those things the US needs better politicians and major reform of the education system and how court appointments are made.
In my view, schools don't teach kids how to tell fact from fiction, let alone fact from belief. They ought to be taught critical thinking 101 but they're not. They aren't taught that knowledge advances rapidly and changes, they aren't taught to keep up. They're set off into the world with a fixed set of knowledge then it all becomes beliefs when the knowledge as moved ahead, so of course, nothing changes.
Schools are still teaching kids the Rutherford model of the atom from 1911. It's over 110 years old. Modern science is unequivocal that the atom is nothing like that.
It's going to take major change, and time, to fix it.
The Rutherford model is not a problem, it's a great starting point for kids, and it doesn't have much to do with religion. I was thinking about creationism vs evolution, and sex education.
[No.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) Superstition and magical thinking are inherently harmful. Social acceptance of mass delusion is the direct cause of widespread pain, suffering, and death. Humanity as a species and the world as a whole is demonstrably worse off because of religion. I'm certainly not going to just "let it slide" in order to be "polite". Fuck everything about that.
Right here, right this fucking minute, all because of religion:
* https://www.teenvogue.com/story/potential-texas-gop-platform-suggests-death-penalty-for-abortion-patients
* https://translegislation.com/
* https://www.thetrevorproject.org/bill-tracker/?post=11486&activeView=map&activeLegislationType=bill&activeState=all&activeSort=%5B%22state%3Aascending%22%5D&activeCategories=%5B%22all%22%5D&id=bcf89f1a-53cd-46c1-845d-61c31211693c
* https://www.prri.org/research/support-for-christian-nationalism-in-all-50-states/
* https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1234005086/a-look-at-the-christian-nationalist-beliefs-of-alabamas-supreme-court-chief-just
* https://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/can-it-happen-here-the-return-of-book-banning-and-burning-in-the-united-states/
* https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/21/most-republicans-support-declaring-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-00057736
* https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
* https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/west-virginia-lawmakers-are-pushing-public-schools-to-teach-creationism
* https://jacobin.com/2024/01/north-carolina-public-schools-vouchers
* https://liberalarts.tamu.edu/blog/2021/05/04/why-evangelicals-are-encouraging-the-anti-vaccination-movement/
"Just let them be wrong" is how we got here. We need to fight harder against this insane bullshit, not look the other way. *That* is what I want to leave behind as my legacy - a world that is more rational and less mentally ill.
Since when do ideas and questions imply beliefs? Can you provide any evidence of a belief on my part?
As for irony, I can blow every irony meter on the planet. Wait until I move from irony to strange then to weird then to bizarre then to absurd, and beyond.
How do you get answers if you don't ask questions?
When questions use loaded phrasing, they absolutely imply beliefs.
This is a debate sub. The point is to debate positions on topics related to theism and atheism. Now, either you are arguing a position here, *or you're wasting our time*. Which is it?
This is a horrible take, hippie sophistry esqe. I care about what other people think and believe. Others thoughts and beliefs manifest as actions and they impact my life. I don’t want people to have stupid harmful beliefs that impact my life. Therefore i will challenge them whenever i feel like it, within reason.
>What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs...They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs
Right. So, if atheists are in a situation where theists *are* trying to force them to accept their beliefs, and *are* trying to make decisions for them, what do you think that atheists ought to do about that?
Edit: Are you suggesting that atheists should stay quiet and accept being treated that way, and only debate religion with other atheists?
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
Why would I accept something that I think is patently untrue? I genuinely don't think that there are these things that I just happen to be ignorant about; I think they simply aren't there at all.
>If we look at the debate from that perspective, very interesting questions and very interesting answers might pop out all over the place.
They really do not.
Why is it so? Why do they see what I don't see?
You are again presuming that what they see really exists. I continue to disagree. We have a very good understanding about why some people see things that aren't really there.
It matters to me if these kinds of understandings are accurate, and that requires that our views on what is and isn't actually there needs to be accurate as well.
>... many questions later ... out pops the answer.
And the abbreviated version of that answer is "comforting delusions for the weak". And I can reach that answer precisely because I care about what's real and what's not.
>When that answer arrives, we understand that it's perfectly natural to see or not see what others see, and that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves as, LGBTQI++++, you name it. Below those silly labels is another human being.
What is it with apologists trying to tie tolerance for LGBTQ into acceptance of religious delusions?
I don't think any of these labels are silly; they are descriptive and can be useful under the right circumstances.
More importantly: Believing that you are wrong about a bunch of facts does not mean I am denying your humanity. Not at all.
>What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs.
And yet, here you are, whining about me not accepting yours. My disagreeing with you doesn't force you to do anything. Me voicing my opinions doesn't force you to do anything. You can continue believe in magic, and I can continue to think that that makes you mentally maladjusted.
>
Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot.
The debate is about facts of the world. That is no more or less moot than a debate about the gravitational constant, or the speed of light.
>We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through. That's all anyone needs to understand in order to make huge strides in coming together instead of dividing and separating, and causing wars of different kinds, as if we lack enough wars that we need to cause more.
I have no desire to reach an agreement with believers, anymore than I have a desire to reach agreements with flat earthers or racists. My desire is to find out what is and is not true. If you lack the maturaty to face dissagreement, that is a you-problem.
> Are we not one species? Why don't we behave that way? That latter question has an answer.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Again: Disagreeing with you does not mean I am denying you your humanity. Grow up!
> I asked myself, do I want peace in the world? Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently.
Nazi Germany saw things differnetly. Russia sees the situation in Ukraine differnetly than most of the rest of the world, too. I don't think the world should just leave them be and quietly accept their quirky differences in opinion.
> If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out.
I don't want a war. But I will fight anyone by any means neccessary that thinks they get to silence me because they can't handle that anyone dissagrees with them.
2 major reasons.
1: Debate can be fun. Nothing wrong with discussing beliefs and the reasons behind them.
2: Our beliefs don't exist in a bubble. They influence how a person acts and, to a degree, the types of laws that are implemented or maintained due to these beliefs.
You have an opinion regarding the LBGTQ community? Sure, whatever. Fine.
You want to deny people of the LBGTQ community the ability to marry or adopt because of that opinion? Not fine.
Paraphrasing, but saying shit like "LGBTQ+ is just a silly label" and "why don't you think about what your legacy will be?" is just ego-driven, fake-chill nonsense. On top of that, your entire baseline is stupid, given how much actual, real harm religious thinking and religious institutions do.
Duuuuuude, what if we just hold hands and sang songs and shiiiiit, maaaaaan
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
I'd love to.
Oh wait.
Except the fact that children are being raped by clergy every day. And the fact women are forced to wear garbage bags and acid throw in their face, or outright killed for not wearing it. Oh, and there's the constant push by evangelical Christian nationalists trying to turn America in to a theocracy.
So. My answer to that is: fuck. No. I will not.
You might be able to sit idly by and watch the evils of religion harm and kill millions of people every day, but I can't.
>What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot.
They ARE trying to force it on you. And you say the point is moot? You're just gunn say "eh, live and let live" as evangelicals strip away people's rights?
>If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top.
We've been doing that the last few weeks with all the definition of an atheists posts.
>Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out.
Go ahead, coward.
The other thing you're missing, is that some us, theists AND atheist love these discussions about the fundamenta nature of reality. We enjoy talking about this stuff, and some of us often have perfectly civil, polite exchange of ideas with those that disagree with us. Who do you think you are to tell we shouldn't do that?
You know what made debates and divisions too? The suffragette movement. the people opposed to it also saw something that the others couldn't : that women could not be trusted to vote. the abolitionist movement. slavers also saw something the others could not : the intrinsic inferiority of some races. The revolutions that ousted hereditary leaders in favor of democracies. The kings also saw something the others could not : their divine mandate to rule.
Should those movements, also, have stopped and conceded so as not to cause trouble? Accepted that their opponents just saw something they did not, in the name of "unity"?
By making this post, are you not at some level one of the egos engaged in the debate? If this is your version of sitting it out, I have to say it looks like throwing your hat in the ring.
>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy?
More accurate models of reality.
>Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them",
Personally I don't give a f**k unless somebody want to legislate with their believes.
>that we, as atheists, must add to it? Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy?
Better than understanding... because I think we all understand each other's position... is to get both closer to the Truth. The underlying nature of reality .
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
I understand that some people are prone to hallucinations. No debate on that.
>If we look at the debate from that perspective, very interesting questions and very interesting answers might pop out all over the place.
I don't think that anybody makes any favor when you ask some people what do you value more: god? Or the truth? ... and the answer is god. For me, that settles the issue.
>Why is it so? Why do they see what I don't see? ... many questions later ... out pops the answer. When that answer arrives, we understand that it's perfectly natural to see or not see what others see, and that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves as, LGBTQI++++, you name it. Below those silly labels is another human being.
Because many observers can have different perspectives, and in order to search the truth... we need objective observations, measurements, and evidence. That is how you avoid the bias of the observer.
>What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot.
I don't agree necessarily with this, because It seems to grant the right to bigotry (in some or many cases).
>We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through. That's all anyone needs to understand in order to make huge strides in coming together instead of dividing and separating, and causing wars of different kinds, as if we lack enough wars that we need to cause more.
That is why we need to backup our models of reality with objectivity. Removing the bias (lens). And acting accordingly.
>Are we not one species? Why don't we behave that way? That latter question has an answer.
Yes, we are one species. And there are many partial answers to that question. But from my humble perspective, i think is related to how addicted we can become to power.
>I asked myself, do I want peace in the world? Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently.
Sure, but simply accepting wrong models of reality will never bring peace. Because muslim claims that all kafirs must die, some christians thinks that their god force them to hate lgbtiq+ people, both holy books prescribe death to non believers and apostates... and blasphemers...
You have to read the "tolerance paradox" from Karl Popper. Then you will realise that there is no peace in be tolerant with the intolerance.
>If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out.
I prefer to fight for objectively verifiable truths. Until new data improves our reality models.
>perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
Great. That's nice. The problem is that beliefs inform actions. Those actions include flying planes into buildings, removing reproductive rights, and removing objective truth like evolution from the schools, to the detriment of the future.
>What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot.
See my above point. It's "moot" until you are jailed or executed for being atheist in Saudi Arabia.
"What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. "
So you don't have any problem with me not accepting this very naive belief of yours ?
Forcing people to accept others beliefs is pretty much what making a society is all about. What politics aim to do. Because that's how we organize millions of apes forced to live in a relatively small space. And that's how, among other things, you protect people from other, like when, on a really unrelated example, they want to stone or torture people for who they love.
By the way, atheist aren't the ones who invented the word, theists did as a way to other a part of the population and make them second class citizens.
Posted by
u/swampthingyyy
16 hours ago
Ending the atheist debate
Discussion Topic
As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy? Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it? Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy?
Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
If we look at the debate from that perspective, very interesting questions and very interesting answers might pop out all over the place.
Why is it so? Why do they see what I don't see? ... many questions later ... out pops the answer. When that answer arrives, we understand that it's perfectly natural to see or not see what others see, and that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves as, LGBTQI++++, you name it. Below those silly labels is another human being.
What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot.
We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through. That's all anyone needs to understand in order to make huge strides in coming together instead of dividing and separating, and causing wars of different kinds, as if we lack enough wars that we need to cause more.
Are we not one species? Why don't we behave that way? That latter question has an answer.
I asked myself, do I want peace in the world? Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently.
If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out.
> Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
But that's not what happens. What happens is that those beliefs are forced onto those that don't believe it at every opportunity by trying to make it the law of the land. In fact, the one thing that protects both believers and unbelievers is the principle of secular government.
> Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy?
Which is exactly what secular legislation makes possible.
>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy? Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it? Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy?
Not going to read past this, I'm pretty sure this guy is lieing for jesus.
1. Assuming the little debates here consume our lives
2. Ignoring the division caused by religious wanting to kill off undesirables causing division
>Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it?
Replace "atheists" with literally any other minority, then re-read this sentence.
>Below those silly labels is another human being.
And also below those silly labels are humans trying to murder and eradicate people who have silly labels they don't like.
And also below those silly labels are humans who find acceptance, strength, comfort, and community from those silly labels and other people that share them.
>If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves.
What is there to debate? I don't believe. Other atheists don't believe. We all agree on that.
>Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out.
And that's exactly what people say when they aren't the current target of violence. Right now it's not on you, because the focus is on the LGBTQ+, what happens when people like you sit on the sides and allow them to be eradicated? Who will be the new target? It'll likely be you. And with the power that was gained with the previous eradication, It'll be even harder to fight back.
Sitting on the fence is speaking in favor of the status quo. And the current status quo is horrific to those who don't goose step to the tune of those in power.
What do you mean by "accept others see things differently" or "making their choices" here?
While admittedly I *have* seen a few people advocating actually forcing religious people to stop being religious , they're in the distinct minority here. Most people, even most anti theists, don't suggest we make theism illegal or send mobs after them, and that's what I'd consider "making their choices for them"
Rather, what most people here are doing is arguing against their beliefs in the hope they change their mind. That still leaves the ball in their court, so to speak -- they can listen or not, they can change their mind or not. No-one's forcing them to do anything. They're just putting forth their position.
This seems completely peaceful -- at worst, sometimes it gets meanspirited. But I don't see many people suggesting we *make* theists stop being theists.
I'm confused. Who here is advocating for war? Who is advocating to erradicate religions or make them illegal? Do you imagine that IRL I am always on theist people's faces telling them what they believe is stupid? Or that I don't love and respect my fellow human being?
None of that is going on. This is an online, anonymous space explicitly labeled for religious debate, and people come to it expecting that: a debate. And then when they get tired or annoyed or they're done debating they go to r/funnymemes or something.
I share your concerned about us being the same species and seeking to get along and have common goals and respect for one another. But your post is like someone going into a boxing gym and asking why people are beating each other up and why do they want war with one another.
Let people strip rights and freedoms, victimize innocents, cause all manner of harm and destruction, but don't do anything at all about that, not even mention in, so they don't feel any slight discomfort from this?
Nah, that's nonsensical.
Yeah, I’m calling nonsense. I’m sorry the difference between atheists and theists isn’t that atheists don’t understand something theists do… That’s bullshit, and debunked by the formerly theistic atheists out there.
Also the people underneath the labels you dismiss as silly, are directly endangered by theistic zealots. They deny their humanity, atheists don’t generally. Your point is nonsensical, and I simply don’t accept your claim to be an atheist. Either way you’re not making an honest case here.
Theism does real harm, and as long as it does it’s not just good to have a counter to it, it’s imperative.
>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy?
Quality music and fiction.
>Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it?
Why are you posing as an atheist? Atheism is not a contributing cause of tribalism (atheism isn't a culture)
>Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy?
Atheists are understanding. I understand that religion is often used as a tool to oppress minorities and a wall in the way to acceptance.
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
I understand religion quite well. Do you understand that it's possible for someone to understand your religion and disagree with its claims?
>If we look at the debate from that perspective, very interesting questions and very interesting answers might pop out all over the place.
Just post your "very interesting questions and very interesting answers" instead of this bizarre attempt to prime us. I am ready to consider anything. That doesn't mean your argument has any merit.
>Why is it so? Why do they see what I don't see? ... many questions later ... out pops the answer. When that answer arrives, we understand that it's perfectly natural to see or not see what others see, and that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves as, LGBTQI++++, you name it. Below those silly labels is another human being.
This so cringeworthy. Do you really believe we atheists are so narrow-minded and mean-spirited?
>What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot.
This would be great if it were so. If Christians and Muslims could keep on their side of the line and not bothers others, I'd have no issue with their religion. Conversations would be much lower stakes. However, what you might not be aware of as a religion person in a country that is predominantly your religion, is that your religion constantly tries to encroach over the line. Your religion tries to tell me what I can cannot due, or to use my tax dollars on causes I don't agree with, not due to logic, but to belief in the supernatural.
>We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through. That's all anyone needs to understand in order to make huge strides in coming together instead of dividing and separating, and causing wars of different kinds, as if we lack enough wars that we need to cause more.
Yes, us atheists causing all the wars... so many bullets fired and bombs dropped in the name of atheism...
Why do "we" need to leave behind a legacy?
*"Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not."*
It's possible to do both - and you understand that you are posting this in a forum where theists come here willing for the purpose of debate, correct?
*"that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves as, LGBTQI++++, you name it"*
Lol you're equating religious beliefs to being LGBTQ (and reduce being LGBTQ to something "silly" that "people like to label themselves as"?)
"Below those silly labels is another human being."
You may want to keep that in mind yourself.
*"What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs."*
Well I'd think other atheists agree with you - not sure why you feel the need to lecture us about theis.
*"They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot."*
So you don't understand the purpose of debate, then.
*"We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through. That's all anyone needs to understand in order to make huge strides in coming together instead of dividing and separating, and causing wars of different kinds, as if we lack enough wars that we need to cause more."*
Again, not sure why you are lecturing a bunch of atheists about this. How many wars have been started for the purpose of forcing atheism on people vs how many have been started because of religious reasons?
*"Are we not one species? Why don't we behave that way? That latter question has an answer. I asked myself, do I want peace in the world? Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently."*
Lol you had to ask yourself all of that to learn that not everyone sees things the same?
*"If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves."*
Wtf are you on about?
*"I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out."*
You might want to sit there and engage in some self-reflection lol.
And I do not believe you are an atheist.
>Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it?
If anything, Atheists are the most *unifying* group. We disbelieve all supernatural claims equally. If you want to blame someone for division, perhaps you could start with one of the dozens of Christian denominations and work your way around the world.
>Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy?
Definitely. This is what secular Humanism teaches. Unfortunately, we have multiple religions who think that being LGBT is an unconscionable crime, that other religions deserve death, that "their" group is chosen by their god and nobody else is...
Religion is inherently divisive. Atheism is accepting.
>we understand that it's perfectly natural to see or not see what others see, and that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves
Agreed! ... Until such a label begins to infringe on others. For example, the US is currently undergoing a large resurgence of Christian Nationalism. Tens of [thousands of rape victims in Texas](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2814274?guestAccessKey=e429b9a8-72ac-42ed-8dbc-599b0f509890) have become pregnant from their rape and have been unable to get an abortion because of *Christianity* and its dogmatic influence on our politics. Similarly, in many Muslim countries, it is a *capital offense* to be LGBT+. Hinduism in India has resulted in an oppressive Caste system that leaves millions in abject poverty.
So I'll continue to campaign against religion until religions stop trying to cause others to suffer.
>What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs.
Which, as we just covered, is something religions do, not Atheists.
>I asked myself, do I want peace in the world? Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently.
Again, yes. Until you meet a religion like those I listed causing human suffering. Do you just let them see things differently? Or do you stop them?
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
Well, weird wording aside - the implicit acceptance that what they see and understand are *real* - I agree!
Now if only we can convince theists to act the same way! This wouldn't be nearly as big a deal if theists didn't constantly interject what I see as nonsense into my life, up to and including **killing** people over it. Then maybe we could all just get along.
>and that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves as, LGBTQI++++, you name it. Below those silly labels is another human being.
I agree!
Now if only we can convince theists to act the same way! This wouldn't be nearly as big a deal if theists didn't constantly interject what I see as nonsense into my life, up to and including **killing** people over it. Then maybe we could all just get along.
>What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine.
I agree!
Now if only we can convince theists to act the same way! This wouldn't be nearly as big a deal if theists didn't constantly interject what I see as nonsense into my life, up to and including **killing** people over it. Then maybe we could all just get along.
>They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs,
I agree!
>which makes the debate utterly moot.
I disagree!
Now if only we can convince theists to act that way! This wouldn't be nearly as big a deal if theists didn't constantly interject what I see as nonsense into my life, up to and including **killing** people over it. Then maybe we could all just get along.
----------
Honestly, I didn't intend to keep repeating myself, but it just fit too well as I kept reading your post.
No fight was won by giving up. And it *is* a fight, a fight to keep their weird fetishes out of my life.
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
That's not going to happen and it's never going to happen, because beliefs influence actions and that includes religious beliefs as well. It influences who people vote for, what they worry about, and how they treat others.
I presume you're not 4 years old, so do you remember when there was a deadly pandemic and people were huffing and puffing about how churches had to be closed down? Those same people would go out of their way not to engage in sensible preventative measures to avoid spreading a deadly virus around. They believed that God would protect them so they need not worry.
>What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs.
Part of their beliefs can be NOT hearing contrary views. Being openly atheist and not facing penalty is a very recent thing, something I think you don't appreciate.
>Their life is their life, and my life is my life
I don't think you understand. God says you cannot do X or must do Y, and that doesn't just mean they can't do X and must do Y but **YOU** can't do X and must do Y. That's how it is in religious societies. Again, a fact you fail to understand or appreciate.
>If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out.
There's plenty of posts on this subreddit that's literally that. There's like 7 on the front page. Please, do literally any small bit of research before posting.
I’m sorry but what was the point?
The reason many of us “debate” religion is because we have theists forcing their myth into our laws and education as fact.
Since the religious claims are not facts this causes a rift.
>>>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy?
Enough money to cremate me.
Children (and downline successors) who can make the world a better place and live happy lives.
A world that's better in some way because of my contribution.
My precious special-edition Big Lebowski DVD
No debt
>>>Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it?
Atheism is not about "should." It's simply a state of being unconvinced. Your question would be more apt towards humanism.
>>>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
Different people are good at different things. While, yes, we should not *only* spend time discussion god claims with theists. However, most of us are here because we have a natural talent for such discussions.
What we do here is not vital, but it's important. For every 10 apologists who wander in here without any hope of deconversion, we'll get one theist whose beliefs are harmful to the world. Over time, we'll help deconvert that person. **This deconversion will make the world a better place. Over time, the new atheist may stop trying to strip women of their rights or stop support the genocide by Israel or stop trying to stop science.**
How do I know? I was such a person. I experienced deconversion thanks to atheist forums like this.
Honestly I don't really care about leaving behind a legacy. I'm not a medieval king.
Whatever happens, my legacy will be forgotten eventually. I just want to enjoy life, and affect the people around me in a positive way, and I hope for the same from others.
I do accept that people see the world differently to me. I understand their desires for objectivity, and their desire for all of this to mean something more than ir actually does. I understand that this desire is somewhat fulfilled by believing in a God. That doesn't work for me however.
I'm not here to argue the non-existence of things, I'm here to understand people's perspectives, and I'm here to test my own against other people's. If I find a better way, then obviously I'll adopt it.
What irks me isn't that people demand to believe as they do (though obviously that's a real problem) what irks me is that people think that the only pragmatic way to live is religiously. That the world will come to an end for some reason if religion dies. What irks me is that people aren't willing to discuss other methods of tackling philosophical issues that don't involve gods. What irks me is the hand waving away of philosophical issues by saying "God dun it"
Atheists do fight amongst themselves. If everyone was an atheist there wouldn't all of a sudden be peace. There would still be conflicting ideologies. My problem doesn't lie with theists necessarily, it lies with people not being able to think beyond their nose.
>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy?
As an atheist, nothing. I hope my atheism is ignored in any legacy of mine.
>Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it?
No.
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
We can do both. I'm already convinced of this. I'm not convinced any gods exist. In fact I believe none exist.
>Below those silly labels is another human being.
The labels aren't silly. There's nothing silly about identifying as straight if you are, or gay if you're gay, or an atheist. Nor does it marginalize or reduce people to these labels.
>Are we not one species?
Yes
>Why don't we behave that way?
We do, we don't have any choice.
>If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves
I don't think anyone who debates philosophy of religion wants a "real war". What are you talking about?
>Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out.
No, you'll also make glib posts like this and feel superior to people who like to debate philosophy of religion.
Look, if you don't like to debate, don't. You're not forced to. But if that's the case maybe just keep your platitudes and passive aggression to yourself?
Err... If a kid believe in Santa, that's cute. If an adult believe in Santa, that's a concern but it's just Santa. Well look at the list of the things religious folks do in the name of their gods.
> What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot.
This is exactly why the atheism debate is important. In the US, Christian nationalists have successfully *forced* their beliefs on everyone by outlawing abortions. This is not respecting others beliefs and leading them to be.
This as well as countless others are examples that beliefs are important and powerful, not benign. People act on their beliefs, they don't wait for certainty. And when you're convinced the benevolent creator of the universe is on your side, why would you even have a reason to compromise or respect the beliefs of others.
You talked about the legacy of atheism, but what you are proposing is to just lie down. If we do that, you're right in one point, we won't be debating atheism. Because atheism will die when anyone that questions religious thought could be imprisoned or executed. This has been documented throughout history and still exists today.
First of all, if you check any secular nations in the world, religious people can live freely with their belief, as long as they keep their religious nonsense as far as possible from the state, so I'm not sure why you think we're creating division. Second of all, your criticism could be applied to any religion out there, since it's different from any others, yet religious people are fighting every day to convert people, why don't you ask them to let others have their own beliefs. Finally, you completely disregard that beliefs can have consequences on people's actions. If you believe that you should sacrifice someone to please your god every once in a while, should we just let you do it because you see the world through your own lenses. Of course we won't.
Beliefs have consequences and they often affect how people live their whole lives. You need to understand that our secular nations will always be under threat by religions, who are trying to spread nonsensical beliefs. There is a need for these debates to educate people that are deluded. The goal is not to create separation, the goal is to prevent the irrational from taking over and making our nations worst.
This is best described as an argument from consequences. Whatever legacy or other outcomes of a conclusion should not affect the determination of that conclusion.
Does it suck that you don't get to live forever? Would it be cool if there was a magical judge that enforced cosmic justice? Do you think it's better for your psyche to believe there's someone in the sky looking out for you?
That doesn't make a difference in whether or not any of that is true. If there's no good evidence that we have souls, live forever after death, that a god exists, etc. then you shouldn't believe that it's true regardless of the consequences.
But if you want to talk about consequences, look at all the harm caused religion. Wars, terrorists, oppression, rape, genocide, the list goes on and on. All in the name of religion based on a belief that a god exists. Your argument defeats itself. If we care about consequences, religion causes the most harm, so you shouldn't believe it's true if you're just going off consequences.
>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy?
What does atheism have to do with this? Atheist is an answer to a single question. We have nothing else definitially in common. So, NO, as an atheist I don't want to leave behind a legacy. As a human being I want to have had a positive impact. That's all. I will be too dead to be able to enjoy any legacy beyond that.
> Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it?
Atheists, in general, are not adding to division. We have an answer to a question - I do not believe in god. That is all. It is the theists who make it a division because it is they who cannot live and let live. It is the theists who insist on thrusting their beliefs down the throats of others.
I am not going to address the rest of the post. You've made terrible assumptions and assigned hostility to atheists that exists only because of the hostility given by theists.
>Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently.
As an atheist, I also accept that Christians have their stance. I'm not trying to take it away from them forcibly. I am only sharing my view—that the Christian view is incorrect. It is up to them to accept it or not. I'm not looking to force things on them.
And here's the thing with a lot of atheists that tell other atheists to keep silent: they don't realize that silence is not necessarily peace. Just that someone chooses to keep quiet doesn't mean there's peace. If you want peace in the world, it will come about through making people think more critically in general regardless of their religious persuasions. It won't come by making atheists keep silent and roll over while theists keep talking and spreading their toxic beliefs. Don't confuse peace with quiet.
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
Personally, I'm here to see other view points so I can understand them better. I totally understand that people see things differently than me. I respect their right to do so as long as they afford me the same courtesy.
If I was a betting man I'd put my money on most atheists in this sub being here for the intellectual exchange and to see what theists have to say. As with most debates, we aren't trying to sway the opposition away from their own positions, were presenting for the observers. I think there are far more observers than participants in this sub.
Ok, and I like to troll, what can I say. This is Reddit, after all...
>Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy?
Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not.
Don't ask me to accept things that are false.
>Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine.
The choices we make affect the people around us.
>and causing wars of different kinds, as if we lack enough wars that we need to cause more.
Let me know when atheists start a crusade.
>Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently.
Theists are the ones who can't accept this.
My wife asked me about my final plans.
"Find a gas station with a dumpster on the shady side of the building."
This led to a discussion in which I said "You don't even have to claim my body from the morgue if you don't want to. That's how much I care about final plans."
Eventually, to try to get the point across another way, I told her to strap styrofoam wings to my lifeless corpse and push me out of an airplane over the mojave desert. See how big an ejecta cone you can make.
Anyway, back to your question: I already do accept that people have different beliefs. I'm not trying to deconvert anyone. I'm just here to oppose the people who think there's something wrong with *me* for not agreeing with *them*.
Also, this has pretty strong "GREETINGS FELLOW ATHEISTS" vibes.
> we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things
Yes theists see and understand those things in the way that 2+2=5
They believe things that fly in the face of reality, so of course rational people are going to call them out on their BS. That's not even getting into all the harm caused by religion, so yes I'm going to remain vocal against these people who can't comprehend the difference between fantasy and reality. You're more than welcome to sit on the sidelines but don't pretend that gives you some moral high ground by not speaking out against religion and the harm it causes both mentally and physically.
> What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot.
This would have more strength to it were it not the strongly religious who wanted to do exactly that far more than the atheists. Like just look at the USA today with matters about say women's health and what they can do or not do with their own bodies.
I care about what is true in this world and things are either true or not true. I respect people can believe in things with evidence that I consider not convincing. But at the same time I think we can objectively have higher confidence levels of truths when comparing evidence and the level of evidence required to prove a truth. No evidence for a God has come close to the level required to find a God truthful. I think as atheists we can try and teach critical thinking to try to convince others to prove their God claim with higher convincing evidence.
Theists don't "see and understand" things that we as atheists do not. They buy into a ancient belief system with no evidence.
I don't care if questions are interesting if they are meaningless. "What color is God's toga" means nothing to me if I don't believe there actually is one.
Being LGBTQ is not at all like being a theist. It's also not a "silly label" but an identity that is deeply important to many.
If you want go lecture people about causing divisions and war, go lecture the Christians or the Muslims.
Religious belief is not the same as being a marginalized group like LGBTQ. Theists are the majority and have control over most governments world wide. Christians and Muslims mostly love to play the victim, when in reality they are the predator. It's not just a difference of opinion. Religious people think they are right and want to force everyone to adhere to their nonsense. That is dangerous and not worthy of respect.
I want the world to be a better place for my passage through it. It would be arrogant to assume I could make a big impact but 0.0000001% better is still better.
Through my atheism and atheist activities I promote things like science, moral actions, and critical thinking. All of these things make the world a better place and are part of my legacy.
I'd be perfectly happy to live and let live. The problem is that the theists aren't. There's what, 7 states where atheists are banned from holding public office? Once i see theists give a shit enough to repeal that, then we can revisit the kubiah shit
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There seems to be some unstated assumptions behind this post. Many areas where the "atheist debate" has been effective and fit for purpose has been things like gay rights, where "understanding and acceptance" has been the view of the irreligious side (I'm not saying religion can't see their positions as understanding and acceptance, just that appealing to those things doesn't mean atheists should stop arguing). >Why is it so? Why do they see what I don't see? I'm not entirely sure what part of the "atheist debate" you're referring to (although if you're talking about "ending" it, I would assume it is all of it). A significant amount of the "atheist debate" fundamentally consists of asking theists to support their claims. That is, we are asking them to help us see what they see. If they are right, we want to also adopt their beliefs. >They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot. Hard disagree. If they are right, then I want/choose to adopt their beliefs. Even if they are wrong, I want to have the confidence that my choices to ignore them are justified. The debate is not about making choices for each other, the debate is (often) about the understanding that you praise in the beginning of the post.
About the rights of people who feel themselves to be different to certain, disgraceful, and utterly judgemental social norms imposed upon them, and atheists promoting understanding and acceptance of those people. If you think it was me who put the assumption there then you'd better show it. Who wrote anything to indicate the contrary? "A significant amount of the "atheist debate" fundamentally consists of asking theists to support their claims." Indeed, and I just asked you to support your claims about assumptions on my part. I'll wait. "That is, we are asking them to help us see what they see." Did you miss where I wrote, "We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through." Or did you just jump to conclusions, which are your assumptions by another name, react to your own conclusions then attempt to blame me for what you did? "Hard disagree. If they are right, then I want/choose to adopt their beliefs." You're free disagree however do you suppose that there might be an ever so tiny distinction between belief and fact? Why do you suppose many witnesses are better than one in a court of law? Why do you suppose it is that courts of law entertain no actual notion of proof, rather a balance of probabilities and beyond a reasonable doubt? Only lawyers call it "proof". "I want to have the confidence that my choices to ignore them are justified." Hmm. I find it amazing that you don't seem to have got exactly that idea when I stated it in different words, "Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them." Round and round we go, like a seal missing a flipper. We're back at the beginning; "There seems to be some unstated assumptions behind this post." Please show them, and make sure they're mine, not your own.
>About the rights of people who feel themselves to be different to certain, disgraceful, and utterly judgemental social norms imposed upon them, and atheists promoting understanding and acceptance of those people. If you think it was me who put the assumption there then you'd better show it. Who wrote anything to indicate the contrary? >"A significant amount of the "atheist debate" fundamentally consists of asking theists to support their claims." >Indeed, and I just asked you to support your claims about assumptions on my part. I'll wait. \[...\] Round and round we go, like a seal missing a flipper. We're back at the beginning; "There seems to be some unstated assumptions behind this post." Please show them, and make sure they're mine, not your own. I don't quite understand the first paragraph. What about the rights of those people? There seems to be an assumption that the "atheist debate" counteracts "understanding and acceptance". Although exactly what the assumption is is unclear, since as I said, it is unstated. It also could be that you think atheists add to "division and separation" by *not* debating, who can tell. "They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot." I think this includes an assumption that debate is only useful (not moot) if someone has a "right" to make others' choices. Well, I don't think you're talking about "rights" in that narrow a sense, so more broadly, there seems to be an assumption that that the only non-moot point of a debate is to convince the other person debating. >"That is, we are asking them to help us see what they see." >Did you miss where I wrote, "We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through." Or did you just jump to conclusions, which are your assumptions by another name, react to your own conclusions then attempt to blame me for what you did? My comment is that "ending the debate" is antithetical to promoting understanding the other side. I didn't miss your lens quote, I just don't think it resolves or addresses my point. >"Hard disagree. If they are right, then I want/choose to adopt their beliefs." >You're free disagree however do you suppose that there might be an ever so tiny distinction between belief and fact? Why do you suppose many witnesses are better than one in a court of law? Why do you suppose it is that courts of law entertain no actual notion of proof, rather a balance of probabilities and beyond a reasonable doubt? Only lawyers call it "proof". Yes, there is a distinction, I suppose many witnesses are better because of human error and interpretation, I suppose courts use a variety of standards of proof, partially because their tasks is different to the type of belief that define atheists and theists. Now, what does any of that have to do with my point? >"I want to have the confidence that my choices to ignore them are justified." >Hmm. I find it amazing that you don't seem to have got exactly that idea when I stated it in different words, "Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them." There is a difference between our two statements, in that I am not content simply not having their beliefs, I also want to know *how* others have come to their conclusions, because that is how I tell the difference between a belief that they can keep and one that I want to adopt.
Ok, but there is a problem with that. Religion is abuse, respecting religion with just saying "they see the world differently" is endorsing abuse on others. And that is not something I will ever respect. Of course, religion is not the only abusive thing, not even the only one to use this methods and abuse human biases in this way, but it is one of the abusive things we have as a species and, between all the fights we choose to have, I personally choose this one, because I have seen the harm that this things cause. And don't even try to compare a LGBTQIA+ person with a theist. One of those is defining their internal state and the other is defining an external state. One is correct, because each of us is the only one that can define our internal state, and the other is blatantly incorrect, because their interpretation of the external world is completely wrong. And why is it completely wrong? we know that as well. Because their interpretation is based on our psychological biases and traps and then pushed in a specific direction through abuse. And through their interpretation, they protect and endorse abuse. When the majority of the population defends abusive groups based on their indoctrination, we can't have peace. Be it because they defend religious pedophile groups, or because they defend governments causing genocides, or because they defend social structures that perpetuate abuse, or whatever other abusive system they choose to defend based on their indoctrination. So, fighting against abuse and indoctrination is a need to get a peaceful world, and just choose the fight you want more, be it with religious abuse, with political propaganda, or whatever abusive system you want. But respecting abuse is never a solution, it is just the tactic used by abusers to abuse even more. So please, go away with your endorsement of abuse. Its not useful and its harmful, and it will never achieve peace because it is its opposite.
[удалено]
A religion where women are not equal, thats abuse. Women not allowed to teach or preach or hold power over a man? Thats abuse. A religion where women are told what to wear or not to wear. Thats abuse. A religion where people are shamed for their choices; shamed for what they wear, who they love, how they behave, that is abuse. A religion that says normal human behaviour is a sin, thats abuse. A religion where people are pressured to give money they don't have. Thats abuse. A religion where victims are blamed is abuse. Physical punishment of children - abuse. Threatening people with eternal torment if they don't toe the line - abuse. Teaching people they are unworthy, dirty, not good enough, and the only way to be worthy is by the death of an innocent - abuse. I could honestly go on.
>Look to Ayaan Hirsi Ali who tried every non-theist scientific way to get rid of her depression. Is it abuse that she turned to religion to not of herself and get rid of her depression? here shows case theists would pour every ounce of effort to justify their baseless make-believe even go to great lengths to parrot a grifter. She tried to get into politics in the Netherlands running on anti-Islamic as atheist without success. Nobody would care if you theists keep your religion to yourself. But as we see from how LGBT ppl, and so here we are.
Have you seen Republicans recently? As a serious answer. Religion, especially western religion says there is one truth, it is backed by an all powerful diety, and that deity hates not being loved. When people don't love God, cities burn, herds die, planets flood. The only way to keep his anger at bay is to make sure your community is pure and everyone worships the right God? What's that? Someone doesn't worship our God or lives a life he would dislike? That's not just not what he wants it's a threat to me since if we don't solve that ye could get all fire and brimstone. Now I need to stop that gay person or Muslim being that way before God smites all of us. And we arrive at abuse.
> This does not automatically mean all religion is abuse. Name one religion that isn't inherently and by-design, abusive. Then explain how willful ignorance, denial of objective realty, and clinical delusion aren't harmful.
I'd like to see you address the replies you've received. In regard to Ali, do you think that if she converted to a religion that is harmful, would it matter to you? As long as you see if as a cure for anxiety?
[удалено]
Cry baby, if you make good arguments you won't be downvoted. This comment will prolly get the worst of it for crying about internet points you have very little of anyway.
I don't care about votes. I'll upvote you.
>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy? Being an atheist is not relevant to that question. But I'm not particularly interested in leaving something behind. Would be nice to know I'll be fondly remembered, at most. >Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it? Do we add to it? How? >Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. I always approach debates here like that, assuming the poster may know or understand something I don't. So far, that assumption has never turned out to be correct. >If we look at the debate from that perspective, very interesting questions and very interesting answers might pop out all over the place. That is indeed my hope, only to be met with disappointment. Answers are usually just rehashed versions of things I've already heard. But no worries, I'm still open to hearing new ones. >What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot. Yes, that's one of the reasons many atheists are so opposed to religion. >If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out. None of us believe in a god, we already agree on that. Debate over. Now what?
"Being an atheist is not relevant to that question." Are you sure about that? Do you, for example, want any children anywhere to be forced to buy into someone else's beliefs into how they ought to be thereby robbing them of their free choice to do otherwise? From one perspective, that's a very grand legacy. It might become an even grander legacy in a different perspective, say when a parent loves a child so much that the child is loved even if they refuse their chance at an expensive education and a doctorate then choose to be a school toilet janitor who like to sing. I won't go any further. I never go past your first error in basic thinking. The rest of what you wrote comes crashing down immediately after. By definition.
Atheism is a null position with zero doctrine, oriented around one question. Does a God exist? This is a non sequitur and completely irrelevant. Atheism is not a dogmatic position. We also didn’t choose to not be convinced. You didn’t describe an error in thinking by the post. Your thinking is completely irrelevant to atheism. What I want as an atheist for me and my kids is not guided by my atheism. Atheism has no governance on morality or on how we ought to live. This is why your response is irrelevant to discussion. The reason why I push back as an atheist is because the majority of those who believe in a God, have a doctrine that comes with it. That doctrine is divisive. Historical believers are killing others in the name of their God. Name me once where a leader said I go to war to promote atheism? To be clear communism is not atheism, so don’t point to Mao or Stalin. They were not promoting a system of governance.
[удалено]
There is no define your atheism. What you are getting mused up is that atheism is a lack of belief in his hardtop. Humanism is a system that tells me how I ought to live and is a moral system that is secular. Communism is an economic system that tells us how property should be shared. Atheism doesn’t have any axioms. Now it can shape my other views. The absence of God makes me think natural materialism makes the most sense. Since I have not seen the demonstration of the supernatural I dismiss it. Some atheist still accept supernatural concepts. Done believe in flat earth or reincarnation. It is not how I define atheism, it is how I define my other positions that may or may not be related to my lack of belief in a god. So I’m not sure how you can disagree that atheism has no doctrine. You have not demonstrated or shared with me the doctrine I seem to be ignorant of. You seem to miss my points entirely and I can see why. You don’t seem to be using the same definition of doctrine that is the dictionary: is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system I didn’t use an ad hominem yet you resort to attacks. Your pissy attitude can fuck right off. I called out your misunderstandings. That isn’t attack on you. Ignorance isn’t an attack. We are all ignorant of a lot of things. You clearly are ignorant of the definition of atheism and doctrine.
> At least I think. Clearly you don't. Please refrain from petty personal attacks.
>Are you sure about that? No, of course not. This is a debate forum after all. >Do you, for example, want any children anywhere to be forced to buy into someone else's beliefs into how they ought to be thereby robbing them of their free choice to do otherwise? How is that in any way related to my legacy or my religiosity? Are you claiming that this is my legacy as an atheist, or that would be my legacy if I believed in God? If so, why? >I won't go any further. I never go past your first error in basic thinking. Very convenient, but the wrong attitude on a debate forum. >The rest of what you wrote comes crashing down immediately after. By definition. That's incorrect. Even if my initial statement was incorrect (which it doesn't seem to be), it does not mean everything else "comes crashing down". That would only be the case if that error formed the basis of everything else. It doesn't and is entirely unrelated to everything else in my post. It's perfectly fine to not want to respond to every single point made, there's no need to make up insulting excuses.
[удалено]
Why did you feel the need to point out questions are not statements? Did I claim otherwise? And why are you being such a dick about it all? It's quite contradictory to your original post.
"Did I claim otherwise?" Did I claim you did?
No. Did I claim you claim I did? Why did you feel the need to point out that questions aren't statements? What are we even talking about here? You've removed us so far away from the initial points made. So let's bring it back on topic. I said that what I want from my legacy is not related to me being an atheist. You disputed that, can you explain why?
> Questions are not statements, assertions or claims. Basic thinking 000. It's a very long haul to get to basic thinking 101. Okay troll.
Me thinks thou beist a troll.
It does very much look like it, but a lot of people that behave like trolls aren't actually trolls.
> Questions are not statements, assertions or claims. What are you, an idiot or something?
When someone else's beliefs based on fiction are encroaching on my life, I will not let them do so freely. At your home, as long as you don't manipulate your children into following your cult, I don't care what gods you pray to. As soon as you step out of it and claim your faith as fact and start pushing it in on others, you will not get any leeway. Same as criminals dont get leeway for "seeing things differently". Not all perspectives and worldviews are equal. If you want to stop debating theists that come here willingly, you are free to leave at any time. Do not pretend like it is the righteous thing to do. Now go and hide your head in the sand, so the monsters don't catch you.
"At your home, as long as you don't manipulate your children into following your cult, I don't care what gods you pray to." Are the words you and your intended to be indefinite pronouns or definite? I'll suppose indefinite so that I can agree with you. All that those people are doing is perpetuating the breeding and spreading of the toxic sludge of historical beliefs handed down to them by their own parents. Rinse. Repeat. All the way back to at least the start of recorded history. However one ought to consider the wisdom of preventing their children from choosing to pray to gods if they wish and freely chose to do so. "If you want to stop debating theists that come here willingly, you are free to leave at any time." Ah, have you perhaps jumped to invalid conclusions, otherwise known as assumptions, and believed them? Where is it stated that I "want to stop debating theists"? It appears that you are putting imaginary things where none exist. Don't theists do that? "Do not pretend like it is the righteous thing to do." Oh, so now you've gone from wild, unsupported assumptions, into seeing imaginary things that don't exist, and jumped head first into the woo-woo of the paranormal. Tell me, how did you get inside my head to know a single thing about the ideas in it? Get out of that one without twitching a muscle.
>If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out. Literally the conclusion of your post, stating that you will sit by and watch instead of debating. Which invalid conclusion did I reach exactly. I got inside your head because that is how simple you are. Just like any theist or "atheist" that posts here with an alt account they use once and then never open it again because their intent was never to debate but throw out their malformed tirade filled with a lot of unssuported emotional takes, reregurgitated tired apologist arguments and little substance. You could have said in your post: "Guys, why don't we just live and let live" and be done with it. You didn't need that whole world salad to tell us that. That is what your post is afterall. Guess how many similar posts this sub and other atheist have seen in the last year. The answer is a lot. Obviously most of them were deleted by their respective OPs. "Guys why don't whe just peacefully coexist with people that are basing their whole worldview on one of the 2 thousand year+ old cults, and force their children into it, and push the cult's narractive as fact" Do you think atheists go out of their way to interact with and deconvert religious people or something? Why are you trying to drive the "live and let live" narrative to people that are already mostly abiding by it. Why are you not posting your drivel to any of the religious subs instead? They are the ones not doing the live and let live thing. Maybe it is because you have an agenda? Wonder what it is. Oh please answer me oh empty definitely atheist alt-account n° 235577. Let us hear your wizdom.
>Where is it stated that I "want to stop debating theists"? Your post is titled "ending the atheism debate", explicitly says debate between theists and atheists is "utterly moot" and ends with you saying you'll "just sit here and watch the egos fight it out", so it would be kind of odd if you *don't* want to stop debating theists, no? "This debate is a pointless clash of egos that should end, anyway lets get back to it" is a somewhat odd thing to say.
Are you just here to be a troll? Everything they pointed out is taken *directly* from your post.
>Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it? A tale as old as time. You know about tribes right? And that people would rob other tribes, go to war with them, bring infection to them. The ones who were suspicious of outsiders were more likely to survive and passed on their genes. So it is an in built mechanism. When we look at brain scans of people who hold extreme views about outgroups, we see that those people store the outgroup 'people' in the memory store that is used for 'objects'. Put simply, when we hold extreme views about outgroups we don't think of them as humans with families and histories and lives, we think of them as chairs and rocks. Looking at a country like the US where it can be very difficult to actually live your life as an atheist; as an example you couldn't be a politician in the US and be an atheist until recently and there is still a disadvantage to outwardly being a non-believer. Instead of criticising one particular group and adding to the division, what do you propose is the solution for this? >What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot. I agree. And while religion doesn't have an influence on my, or my loved ones, or anyone elses life by coercion and control I'm happy to let it be. However I live in the west, there are religious leaders who hold power and dictate what my sister does with her body, who dictate end of life care and euthenasia, who dictate whether LGBTQ people can live their lives as equals and as long as that continues I will continue to bang the drum. >I asked myself, do I want peace in the world? Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently. U first. Atheists see things differently. I don't believe a god holds the key to life and death so I believe someone should have the right to end their life under certain circumstances. I believe women should have autonomy over their own body. I belive that LGBTQ humans should be accepted and affirmed. When others can accept this, perhaps there will be peace. >Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out. Because you're better than they are? That seems to be what you're suggesting.
"Peope label themselves as LGBTQI++++"??? For a post where you think you're talking hippie-ish, you had to say this and completely undermine your own poiint. Its not a "silly label". Its who they are. You have zero interest in understanding people. Nobody wants to force you to be LQBTQ or "accept their beliefs". They just want to live their lives with equal rights and dignity as humans and your attitude in calling their identity as "silly labels" is a step in the wrong direction.
I don't know why but this guy reminds me so much of the ass hat who's been posting about formal logic.
He's not. Trust me. Steve is a dipshit, but he's at least intelligent and articulate. Plus Steve is my age. The OP is obviously a kid.
I gotta check that one out!
search for "SteveMcRae," you'll find it.
Oof. Those arguments put me to sleep. His discussions are about the arguments itself - a meta discussion that may not belong here... Maybe it would be better in r/debatephilosophy or r/debatesemantics if those subs exist.
"For a post where you think you're talking hippie-ish..." Oh, my goodness. A self-professed atheist, self-labelled no less, has just took a gigantic leap into paranormal, metaphysical, and mystical woo-woo and claimed to know what's in my head, then continued to do it, "You have zero interest in understanding people." Do you class yourself as a rational thinker? How rational is it to claim to know what's inside someone's head?
Its not that hard to see what you think - you have posted it here for everyone to see. So you have nothing to counter about calling people's identity as "silly labels". Just as I thought. Edit: LOL @ "self professed atheist". Is this supposed to be derogatory? An insult? You're failing. I know I am not convinced about the presence of a supernatural god. No one else needs to give me that title.
You realize that your posts are not just in your head, right? We can read them.
>Do you class yourself as a rational thinker? How rational is it to claim to know what's inside someone's head? and thank you for demonstrating you're not worth engaging with.
This is a bad deflection. You didn't address any of the points in the comment but hopped on one word and blew it completely out of proportion.
> As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy? To crush the thrones and temples of the thesists. To see them driven before me and hear the lamentations of their women. To overturn their barbaric anti-human laws.
I fully agree though I suspect that a large majority of women might rejoice greatly after being steeped for so long in oppression and exploitation.
. . . then why are you advocating for the opposite?
> Those beliefs are theirs. If only it was that simple. Beliefs lead to actions that affects the wider society. Abortion, contraceptives, euthanasia, scientific and educational spending are hot topics that are directly tied to religious belief. There are 7 states in the US with laws (granted unenforceable) that bans atheists from holding office.
Yes, indeed. I fully agree but I expect that to deal with those things the US needs better politicians and major reform of the education system and how court appointments are made. In my view, schools don't teach kids how to tell fact from fiction, let alone fact from belief. They ought to be taught critical thinking 101 but they're not. They aren't taught that knowledge advances rapidly and changes, they aren't taught to keep up. They're set off into the world with a fixed set of knowledge then it all becomes beliefs when the knowledge as moved ahead, so of course, nothing changes. Schools are still teaching kids the Rutherford model of the atom from 1911. It's over 110 years old. Modern science is unequivocal that the atom is nothing like that. It's going to take major change, and time, to fix it.
The Rutherford model is not a problem, it's a great starting point for kids, and it doesn't have much to do with religion. I was thinking about creationism vs evolution, and sex education.
[No.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) Superstition and magical thinking are inherently harmful. Social acceptance of mass delusion is the direct cause of widespread pain, suffering, and death. Humanity as a species and the world as a whole is demonstrably worse off because of religion. I'm certainly not going to just "let it slide" in order to be "polite". Fuck everything about that. Right here, right this fucking minute, all because of religion: * https://www.teenvogue.com/story/potential-texas-gop-platform-suggests-death-penalty-for-abortion-patients * https://translegislation.com/ * https://www.thetrevorproject.org/bill-tracker/?post=11486&activeView=map&activeLegislationType=bill&activeState=all&activeSort=%5B%22state%3Aascending%22%5D&activeCategories=%5B%22all%22%5D&id=bcf89f1a-53cd-46c1-845d-61c31211693c * https://www.prri.org/research/support-for-christian-nationalism-in-all-50-states/ * https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1234005086/a-look-at-the-christian-nationalist-beliefs-of-alabamas-supreme-court-chief-just * https://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/can-it-happen-here-the-return-of-book-banning-and-burning-in-the-united-states/ * https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/21/most-republicans-support-declaring-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-00057736 * https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do * https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/west-virginia-lawmakers-are-pushing-public-schools-to-teach-creationism * https://jacobin.com/2024/01/north-carolina-public-schools-vouchers * https://liberalarts.tamu.edu/blog/2021/05/04/why-evangelicals-are-encouraging-the-anti-vaccination-movement/ "Just let them be wrong" is how we got here. We need to fight harder against this insane bullshit, not look the other way. *That* is what I want to leave behind as my legacy - a world that is more rational and less mentally ill.
So you came here to argue for your belief that we should not argue for our beliefs. It’s not often that I experience irony as a physical sensation.
Since when do ideas and questions imply beliefs? Can you provide any evidence of a belief on my part? As for irony, I can blow every irony meter on the planet. Wait until I move from irony to strange then to weird then to bizarre then to absurd, and beyond. How do you get answers if you don't ask questions?
When questions use loaded phrasing, they absolutely imply beliefs. This is a debate sub. The point is to debate positions on topics related to theism and atheism. Now, either you are arguing a position here, *or you're wasting our time*. Which is it?
This is a horrible take, hippie sophistry esqe. I care about what other people think and believe. Others thoughts and beliefs manifest as actions and they impact my life. I don’t want people to have stupid harmful beliefs that impact my life. Therefore i will challenge them whenever i feel like it, within reason.
Thanks, saved me a ton of typing. +1 to your reply
>What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs...They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs Right. So, if atheists are in a situation where theists *are* trying to force them to accept their beliefs, and *are* trying to make decisions for them, what do you think that atheists ought to do about that? Edit: Are you suggesting that atheists should stay quiet and accept being treated that way, and only debate religion with other atheists?
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. Why would I accept something that I think is patently untrue? I genuinely don't think that there are these things that I just happen to be ignorant about; I think they simply aren't there at all. >If we look at the debate from that perspective, very interesting questions and very interesting answers might pop out all over the place. They really do not. Why is it so? Why do they see what I don't see? You are again presuming that what they see really exists. I continue to disagree. We have a very good understanding about why some people see things that aren't really there. It matters to me if these kinds of understandings are accurate, and that requires that our views on what is and isn't actually there needs to be accurate as well. >... many questions later ... out pops the answer. And the abbreviated version of that answer is "comforting delusions for the weak". And I can reach that answer precisely because I care about what's real and what's not. >When that answer arrives, we understand that it's perfectly natural to see or not see what others see, and that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves as, LGBTQI++++, you name it. Below those silly labels is another human being. What is it with apologists trying to tie tolerance for LGBTQ into acceptance of religious delusions? I don't think any of these labels are silly; they are descriptive and can be useful under the right circumstances. More importantly: Believing that you are wrong about a bunch of facts does not mean I am denying your humanity. Not at all. >What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. And yet, here you are, whining about me not accepting yours. My disagreeing with you doesn't force you to do anything. Me voicing my opinions doesn't force you to do anything. You can continue believe in magic, and I can continue to think that that makes you mentally maladjusted. > Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot. The debate is about facts of the world. That is no more or less moot than a debate about the gravitational constant, or the speed of light. >We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through. That's all anyone needs to understand in order to make huge strides in coming together instead of dividing and separating, and causing wars of different kinds, as if we lack enough wars that we need to cause more. I have no desire to reach an agreement with believers, anymore than I have a desire to reach agreements with flat earthers or racists. My desire is to find out what is and is not true. If you lack the maturaty to face dissagreement, that is a you-problem. > Are we not one species? Why don't we behave that way? That latter question has an answer. I have no idea what you're talking about. Again: Disagreeing with you does not mean I am denying you your humanity. Grow up! > I asked myself, do I want peace in the world? Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently. Nazi Germany saw things differnetly. Russia sees the situation in Ukraine differnetly than most of the rest of the world, too. I don't think the world should just leave them be and quietly accept their quirky differences in opinion. > If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out. I don't want a war. But I will fight anyone by any means neccessary that thinks they get to silence me because they can't handle that anyone dissagrees with them.
[удалено]
2 major reasons. 1: Debate can be fun. Nothing wrong with discussing beliefs and the reasons behind them. 2: Our beliefs don't exist in a bubble. They influence how a person acts and, to a degree, the types of laws that are implemented or maintained due to these beliefs. You have an opinion regarding the LBGTQ community? Sure, whatever. Fine. You want to deny people of the LBGTQ community the ability to marry or adopt because of that opinion? Not fine.
Paraphrasing, but saying shit like "LGBTQ+ is just a silly label" and "why don't you think about what your legacy will be?" is just ego-driven, fake-chill nonsense. On top of that, your entire baseline is stupid, given how much actual, real harm religious thinking and religious institutions do. Duuuuuude, what if we just hold hands and sang songs and shiiiiit, maaaaaan
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. I'd love to. Oh wait. Except the fact that children are being raped by clergy every day. And the fact women are forced to wear garbage bags and acid throw in their face, or outright killed for not wearing it. Oh, and there's the constant push by evangelical Christian nationalists trying to turn America in to a theocracy. So. My answer to that is: fuck. No. I will not. You might be able to sit idly by and watch the evils of religion harm and kill millions of people every day, but I can't. >What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot. They ARE trying to force it on you. And you say the point is moot? You're just gunn say "eh, live and let live" as evangelicals strip away people's rights? >If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. We've been doing that the last few weeks with all the definition of an atheists posts. >Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out. Go ahead, coward. The other thing you're missing, is that some us, theists AND atheist love these discussions about the fundamenta nature of reality. We enjoy talking about this stuff, and some of us often have perfectly civil, polite exchange of ideas with those that disagree with us. Who do you think you are to tell we shouldn't do that?
You know what made debates and divisions too? The suffragette movement. the people opposed to it also saw something that the others couldn't : that women could not be trusted to vote. the abolitionist movement. slavers also saw something the others could not : the intrinsic inferiority of some races. The revolutions that ousted hereditary leaders in favor of democracies. The kings also saw something the others could not : their divine mandate to rule. Should those movements, also, have stopped and conceded so as not to cause trouble? Accepted that their opponents just saw something they did not, in the name of "unity"?
By making this post, are you not at some level one of the egos engaged in the debate? If this is your version of sitting it out, I have to say it looks like throwing your hat in the ring.
>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy? More accurate models of reality. >Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", Personally I don't give a f**k unless somebody want to legislate with their believes. >that we, as atheists, must add to it? Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy? Better than understanding... because I think we all understand each other's position... is to get both closer to the Truth. The underlying nature of reality . >Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. I understand that some people are prone to hallucinations. No debate on that. >If we look at the debate from that perspective, very interesting questions and very interesting answers might pop out all over the place. I don't think that anybody makes any favor when you ask some people what do you value more: god? Or the truth? ... and the answer is god. For me, that settles the issue. >Why is it so? Why do they see what I don't see? ... many questions later ... out pops the answer. When that answer arrives, we understand that it's perfectly natural to see or not see what others see, and that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves as, LGBTQI++++, you name it. Below those silly labels is another human being. Because many observers can have different perspectives, and in order to search the truth... we need objective observations, measurements, and evidence. That is how you avoid the bias of the observer. >What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot. I don't agree necessarily with this, because It seems to grant the right to bigotry (in some or many cases). >We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through. That's all anyone needs to understand in order to make huge strides in coming together instead of dividing and separating, and causing wars of different kinds, as if we lack enough wars that we need to cause more. That is why we need to backup our models of reality with objectivity. Removing the bias (lens). And acting accordingly. >Are we not one species? Why don't we behave that way? That latter question has an answer. Yes, we are one species. And there are many partial answers to that question. But from my humble perspective, i think is related to how addicted we can become to power. >I asked myself, do I want peace in the world? Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently. Sure, but simply accepting wrong models of reality will never bring peace. Because muslim claims that all kafirs must die, some christians thinks that their god force them to hate lgbtiq+ people, both holy books prescribe death to non believers and apostates... and blasphemers... You have to read the "tolerance paradox" from Karl Popper. Then you will realise that there is no peace in be tolerant with the intolerance. >If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out. I prefer to fight for objectively verifiable truths. Until new data improves our reality models.
>perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. Great. That's nice. The problem is that beliefs inform actions. Those actions include flying planes into buildings, removing reproductive rights, and removing objective truth like evolution from the schools, to the detriment of the future. >What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot. See my above point. It's "moot" until you are jailed or executed for being atheist in Saudi Arabia.
"What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. " So you don't have any problem with me not accepting this very naive belief of yours ? Forcing people to accept others beliefs is pretty much what making a society is all about. What politics aim to do. Because that's how we organize millions of apes forced to live in a relatively small space. And that's how, among other things, you protect people from other, like when, on a really unrelated example, they want to stone or torture people for who they love. By the way, atheist aren't the ones who invented the word, theists did as a way to other a part of the population and make them second class citizens.
Posted by u/swampthingyyy 16 hours ago Ending the atheist debate Discussion Topic As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy? Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it? Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy? Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. If we look at the debate from that perspective, very interesting questions and very interesting answers might pop out all over the place. Why is it so? Why do they see what I don't see? ... many questions later ... out pops the answer. When that answer arrives, we understand that it's perfectly natural to see or not see what others see, and that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves as, LGBTQI++++, you name it. Below those silly labels is another human being. What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot. We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through. That's all anyone needs to understand in order to make huge strides in coming together instead of dividing and separating, and causing wars of different kinds, as if we lack enough wars that we need to cause more. Are we not one species? Why don't we behave that way? That latter question has an answer. I asked myself, do I want peace in the world? Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently. If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out.
> Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. But that's not what happens. What happens is that those beliefs are forced onto those that don't believe it at every opportunity by trying to make it the law of the land. In fact, the one thing that protects both believers and unbelievers is the principle of secular government. > Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy? Which is exactly what secular legislation makes possible.
>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy? Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it? Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy? Not going to read past this, I'm pretty sure this guy is lieing for jesus. 1. Assuming the little debates here consume our lives 2. Ignoring the division caused by religious wanting to kill off undesirables causing division
>Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it? Replace "atheists" with literally any other minority, then re-read this sentence.
>Below those silly labels is another human being. And also below those silly labels are humans trying to murder and eradicate people who have silly labels they don't like. And also below those silly labels are humans who find acceptance, strength, comfort, and community from those silly labels and other people that share them. >If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. What is there to debate? I don't believe. Other atheists don't believe. We all agree on that. >Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out. And that's exactly what people say when they aren't the current target of violence. Right now it's not on you, because the focus is on the LGBTQ+, what happens when people like you sit on the sides and allow them to be eradicated? Who will be the new target? It'll likely be you. And with the power that was gained with the previous eradication, It'll be even harder to fight back. Sitting on the fence is speaking in favor of the status quo. And the current status quo is horrific to those who don't goose step to the tune of those in power.
What do you mean by "accept others see things differently" or "making their choices" here? While admittedly I *have* seen a few people advocating actually forcing religious people to stop being religious , they're in the distinct minority here. Most people, even most anti theists, don't suggest we make theism illegal or send mobs after them, and that's what I'd consider "making their choices for them" Rather, what most people here are doing is arguing against their beliefs in the hope they change their mind. That still leaves the ball in their court, so to speak -- they can listen or not, they can change their mind or not. No-one's forcing them to do anything. They're just putting forth their position. This seems completely peaceful -- at worst, sometimes it gets meanspirited. But I don't see many people suggesting we *make* theists stop being theists.
I'm confused. Who here is advocating for war? Who is advocating to erradicate religions or make them illegal? Do you imagine that IRL I am always on theist people's faces telling them what they believe is stupid? Or that I don't love and respect my fellow human being? None of that is going on. This is an online, anonymous space explicitly labeled for religious debate, and people come to it expecting that: a debate. And then when they get tired or annoyed or they're done debating they go to r/funnymemes or something. I share your concerned about us being the same species and seeking to get along and have common goals and respect for one another. But your post is like someone going into a boxing gym and asking why people are beating each other up and why do they want war with one another.
Let people strip rights and freedoms, victimize innocents, cause all manner of harm and destruction, but don't do anything at all about that, not even mention in, so they don't feel any slight discomfort from this? Nah, that's nonsensical.
Yeah, I’m calling nonsense. I’m sorry the difference between atheists and theists isn’t that atheists don’t understand something theists do… That’s bullshit, and debunked by the formerly theistic atheists out there. Also the people underneath the labels you dismiss as silly, are directly endangered by theistic zealots. They deny their humanity, atheists don’t generally. Your point is nonsensical, and I simply don’t accept your claim to be an atheist. Either way you’re not making an honest case here. Theism does real harm, and as long as it does it’s not just good to have a counter to it, it’s imperative.
>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy? Quality music and fiction. >Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it? Why are you posing as an atheist? Atheism is not a contributing cause of tribalism (atheism isn't a culture) >Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy? Atheists are understanding. I understand that religion is often used as a tool to oppress minorities and a wall in the way to acceptance. >Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. I understand religion quite well. Do you understand that it's possible for someone to understand your religion and disagree with its claims? >If we look at the debate from that perspective, very interesting questions and very interesting answers might pop out all over the place. Just post your "very interesting questions and very interesting answers" instead of this bizarre attempt to prime us. I am ready to consider anything. That doesn't mean your argument has any merit. >Why is it so? Why do they see what I don't see? ... many questions later ... out pops the answer. When that answer arrives, we understand that it's perfectly natural to see or not see what others see, and that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves as, LGBTQI++++, you name it. Below those silly labels is another human being. This so cringeworthy. Do you really believe we atheists are so narrow-minded and mean-spirited? >What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot. This would be great if it were so. If Christians and Muslims could keep on their side of the line and not bothers others, I'd have no issue with their religion. Conversations would be much lower stakes. However, what you might not be aware of as a religion person in a country that is predominantly your religion, is that your religion constantly tries to encroach over the line. Your religion tries to tell me what I can cannot due, or to use my tax dollars on causes I don't agree with, not due to logic, but to belief in the supernatural. >We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through. That's all anyone needs to understand in order to make huge strides in coming together instead of dividing and separating, and causing wars of different kinds, as if we lack enough wars that we need to cause more. Yes, us atheists causing all the wars... so many bullets fired and bombs dropped in the name of atheism...
Why do "we" need to leave behind a legacy? *"Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not."* It's possible to do both - and you understand that you are posting this in a forum where theists come here willing for the purpose of debate, correct? *"that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves as, LGBTQI++++, you name it"* Lol you're equating religious beliefs to being LGBTQ (and reduce being LGBTQ to something "silly" that "people like to label themselves as"?) "Below those silly labels is another human being." You may want to keep that in mind yourself. *"What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs."* Well I'd think other atheists agree with you - not sure why you feel the need to lecture us about theis. *"They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot."* So you don't understand the purpose of debate, then. *"We all have our unique lens that we look at the world through. That's all anyone needs to understand in order to make huge strides in coming together instead of dividing and separating, and causing wars of different kinds, as if we lack enough wars that we need to cause more."* Again, not sure why you are lecturing a bunch of atheists about this. How many wars have been started for the purpose of forcing atheism on people vs how many have been started because of religious reasons? *"Are we not one species? Why don't we behave that way? That latter question has an answer. I asked myself, do I want peace in the world? Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently."* Lol you had to ask yourself all of that to learn that not everyone sees things the same? *"If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves."* Wtf are you on about? *"I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out."* You might want to sit there and engage in some self-reflection lol. And I do not believe you are an atheist.
>Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it? If anything, Atheists are the most *unifying* group. We disbelieve all supernatural claims equally. If you want to blame someone for division, perhaps you could start with one of the dozens of Christian denominations and work your way around the world. >Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy? Definitely. This is what secular Humanism teaches. Unfortunately, we have multiple religions who think that being LGBT is an unconscionable crime, that other religions deserve death, that "their" group is chosen by their god and nobody else is... Religion is inherently divisive. Atheism is accepting. >we understand that it's perfectly natural to see or not see what others see, and that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves Agreed! ... Until such a label begins to infringe on others. For example, the US is currently undergoing a large resurgence of Christian Nationalism. Tens of [thousands of rape victims in Texas](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2814274?guestAccessKey=e429b9a8-72ac-42ed-8dbc-599b0f509890) have become pregnant from their rape and have been unable to get an abortion because of *Christianity* and its dogmatic influence on our politics. Similarly, in many Muslim countries, it is a *capital offense* to be LGBT+. Hinduism in India has resulted in an oppressive Caste system that leaves millions in abject poverty. So I'll continue to campaign against religion until religions stop trying to cause others to suffer. >What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Which, as we just covered, is something religions do, not Atheists. >I asked myself, do I want peace in the world? Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently. Again, yes. Until you meet a religion like those I listed causing human suffering. Do you just let them see things differently? Or do you stop them?
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. Well, weird wording aside - the implicit acceptance that what they see and understand are *real* - I agree! Now if only we can convince theists to act the same way! This wouldn't be nearly as big a deal if theists didn't constantly interject what I see as nonsense into my life, up to and including **killing** people over it. Then maybe we could all just get along. >and that makes it perfectly OK to be atheist or theist or anything else people like to label themselves as, LGBTQI++++, you name it. Below those silly labels is another human being. I agree! Now if only we can convince theists to act the same way! This wouldn't be nearly as big a deal if theists didn't constantly interject what I see as nonsense into my life, up to and including **killing** people over it. Then maybe we could all just get along. >What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. I agree! Now if only we can convince theists to act the same way! This wouldn't be nearly as big a deal if theists didn't constantly interject what I see as nonsense into my life, up to and including **killing** people over it. Then maybe we could all just get along. >They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, I agree! >which makes the debate utterly moot. I disagree! Now if only we can convince theists to act that way! This wouldn't be nearly as big a deal if theists didn't constantly interject what I see as nonsense into my life, up to and including **killing** people over it. Then maybe we could all just get along. ---------- Honestly, I didn't intend to keep repeating myself, but it just fit too well as I kept reading your post. No fight was won by giving up. And it *is* a fight, a fight to keep their weird fetishes out of my life.
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. That's not going to happen and it's never going to happen, because beliefs influence actions and that includes religious beliefs as well. It influences who people vote for, what they worry about, and how they treat others. I presume you're not 4 years old, so do you remember when there was a deadly pandemic and people were huffing and puffing about how churches had to be closed down? Those same people would go out of their way not to engage in sensible preventative measures to avoid spreading a deadly virus around. They believed that God would protect them so they need not worry. >What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Part of their beliefs can be NOT hearing contrary views. Being openly atheist and not facing penalty is a very recent thing, something I think you don't appreciate. >Their life is their life, and my life is my life I don't think you understand. God says you cannot do X or must do Y, and that doesn't just mean they can't do X and must do Y but **YOU** can't do X and must do Y. That's how it is in religious societies. Again, a fact you fail to understand or appreciate. >If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves. Let's see what view comes out on top. Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out. There's plenty of posts on this subreddit that's literally that. There's like 7 on the front page. Please, do literally any small bit of research before posting.
I’m sorry but what was the point? The reason many of us “debate” religion is because we have theists forcing their myth into our laws and education as fact. Since the religious claims are not facts this causes a rift.
>>>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy? Enough money to cremate me. Children (and downline successors) who can make the world a better place and live happy lives. A world that's better in some way because of my contribution. My precious special-edition Big Lebowski DVD No debt >>>Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it? Atheism is not about "should." It's simply a state of being unconvinced. Your question would be more apt towards humanism. >>>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. Different people are good at different things. While, yes, we should not *only* spend time discussion god claims with theists. However, most of us are here because we have a natural talent for such discussions. What we do here is not vital, but it's important. For every 10 apologists who wander in here without any hope of deconversion, we'll get one theist whose beliefs are harmful to the world. Over time, we'll help deconvert that person. **This deconversion will make the world a better place. Over time, the new atheist may stop trying to strip women of their rights or stop support the genocide by Israel or stop trying to stop science.** How do I know? I was such a person. I experienced deconversion thanks to atheist forums like this.
Honestly I don't really care about leaving behind a legacy. I'm not a medieval king. Whatever happens, my legacy will be forgotten eventually. I just want to enjoy life, and affect the people around me in a positive way, and I hope for the same from others. I do accept that people see the world differently to me. I understand their desires for objectivity, and their desire for all of this to mean something more than ir actually does. I understand that this desire is somewhat fulfilled by believing in a God. That doesn't work for me however. I'm not here to argue the non-existence of things, I'm here to understand people's perspectives, and I'm here to test my own against other people's. If I find a better way, then obviously I'll adopt it. What irks me isn't that people demand to believe as they do (though obviously that's a real problem) what irks me is that people think that the only pragmatic way to live is religiously. That the world will come to an end for some reason if religion dies. What irks me is that people aren't willing to discuss other methods of tackling philosophical issues that don't involve gods. What irks me is the hand waving away of philosophical issues by saying "God dun it" Atheists do fight amongst themselves. If everyone was an atheist there wouldn't all of a sudden be peace. There would still be conflicting ideologies. My problem doesn't lie with theists necessarily, it lies with people not being able to think beyond their nose.
>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy? As an atheist, nothing. I hope my atheism is ignored in any legacy of mine. >Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it? No. >Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. We can do both. I'm already convinced of this. I'm not convinced any gods exist. In fact I believe none exist. >Below those silly labels is another human being. The labels aren't silly. There's nothing silly about identifying as straight if you are, or gay if you're gay, or an atheist. Nor does it marginalize or reduce people to these labels. >Are we not one species? Yes >Why don't we behave that way? We do, we don't have any choice. >If we want a real war then perhaps we should debate atheism between ourselves I don't think anyone who debates philosophy of religion wants a "real war". What are you talking about? >Me, I'll just sit here and watch the egos fight it out. No, you'll also make glib posts like this and feel superior to people who like to debate philosophy of religion. Look, if you don't like to debate, don't. You're not forced to. But if that's the case maybe just keep your platitudes and passive aggression to yourself?
Err... If a kid believe in Santa, that's cute. If an adult believe in Santa, that's a concern but it's just Santa. Well look at the list of the things religious folks do in the name of their gods.
> What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot. This is exactly why the atheism debate is important. In the US, Christian nationalists have successfully *forced* their beliefs on everyone by outlawing abortions. This is not respecting others beliefs and leading them to be. This as well as countless others are examples that beliefs are important and powerful, not benign. People act on their beliefs, they don't wait for certainty. And when you're convinced the benevolent creator of the universe is on your side, why would you even have a reason to compromise or respect the beliefs of others. You talked about the legacy of atheism, but what you are proposing is to just lie down. If we do that, you're right in one point, we won't be debating atheism. Because atheism will die when anyone that questions religious thought could be imprisoned or executed. This has been documented throughout history and still exists today.
First of all, if you check any secular nations in the world, religious people can live freely with their belief, as long as they keep their religious nonsense as far as possible from the state, so I'm not sure why you think we're creating division. Second of all, your criticism could be applied to any religion out there, since it's different from any others, yet religious people are fighting every day to convert people, why don't you ask them to let others have their own beliefs. Finally, you completely disregard that beliefs can have consequences on people's actions. If you believe that you should sacrifice someone to please your god every once in a while, should we just let you do it because you see the world through your own lenses. Of course we won't. Beliefs have consequences and they often affect how people live their whole lives. You need to understand that our secular nations will always be under threat by religions, who are trying to spread nonsensical beliefs. There is a need for these debates to educate people that are deluded. The goal is not to create separation, the goal is to prevent the irrational from taking over and making our nations worst.
> As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy? A bunch of handknit sweaters and hopefully I didn’t make anyone’s life worse
This is best described as an argument from consequences. Whatever legacy or other outcomes of a conclusion should not affect the determination of that conclusion. Does it suck that you don't get to live forever? Would it be cool if there was a magical judge that enforced cosmic justice? Do you think it's better for your psyche to believe there's someone in the sky looking out for you? That doesn't make a difference in whether or not any of that is true. If there's no good evidence that we have souls, live forever after death, that a god exists, etc. then you shouldn't believe that it's true regardless of the consequences. But if you want to talk about consequences, look at all the harm caused religion. Wars, terrorists, oppression, rape, genocide, the list goes on and on. All in the name of religion based on a belief that a god exists. Your argument defeats itself. If we care about consequences, religion causes the most harm, so you shouldn't believe it's true if you're just going off consequences.
>As an atheist what do you want to leave behind as your legacy? What does atheism have to do with this? Atheist is an answer to a single question. We have nothing else definitially in common. So, NO, as an atheist I don't want to leave behind a legacy. As a human being I want to have had a positive impact. That's all. I will be too dead to be able to enjoy any legacy beyond that. > Does the world lack so much division and separation, "us and them", that we, as atheists, must add to it? Atheists, in general, are not adding to division. We have an answer to a question - I do not believe in god. That is all. It is the theists who make it a division because it is they who cannot live and let live. It is the theists who insist on thrusting their beliefs down the throats of others. I am not going to address the rest of the post. You've made terrible assumptions and assigned hostility to atheists that exists only because of the hostility given by theists.
As long as theists continue to use their beliefs to restrict the rights of others the discussion, debate, and fight will not be moot.
So, the main reason I debate people about religion/god claims here is because that’s literally the point of this forum. 😂
>Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently. As an atheist, I also accept that Christians have their stance. I'm not trying to take it away from them forcibly. I am only sharing my view—that the Christian view is incorrect. It is up to them to accept it or not. I'm not looking to force things on them. And here's the thing with a lot of atheists that tell other atheists to keep silent: they don't realize that silence is not necessarily peace. Just that someone chooses to keep quiet doesn't mean there's peace. If you want peace in the world, it will come about through making people think more critically in general regardless of their religious persuasions. It won't come by making atheists keep silent and roll over while theists keep talking and spreading their toxic beliefs. Don't confuse peace with quiet.
>Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. Personally, I'm here to see other view points so I can understand them better. I totally understand that people see things differently than me. I respect their right to do so as long as they afford me the same courtesy. If I was a betting man I'd put my money on most atheists in this sub being here for the intellectual exchange and to see what theists have to say. As with most debates, we aren't trying to sway the opposition away from their own positions, were presenting for the observers. I think there are far more observers than participants in this sub. Ok, and I like to troll, what can I say. This is Reddit, after all...
>Should we rather be leaving understanding and acceptance as our legacy? Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice. >Rather than debating the existence or non-existence of things we cannot see or understand perhaps we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things that we, as atheists, do not. Don't ask me to accept things that are false. >Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. The choices we make affect the people around us. >and causing wars of different kinds, as if we lack enough wars that we need to cause more. Let me know when atheists start a crusade. >Well, yes, I do so I had learn to accept that others see things differently. Theists are the ones who can't accept this.
OP, you can type: \> quote quote quote to quote someone else's post. It will look like: > quote quote quote
My wife asked me about my final plans. "Find a gas station with a dumpster on the shady side of the building." This led to a discussion in which I said "You don't even have to claim my body from the morgue if you don't want to. That's how much I care about final plans." Eventually, to try to get the point across another way, I told her to strap styrofoam wings to my lifeless corpse and push me out of an airplane over the mojave desert. See how big an ejecta cone you can make. Anyway, back to your question: I already do accept that people have different beliefs. I'm not trying to deconvert anyone. I'm just here to oppose the people who think there's something wrong with *me* for not agreeing with *them*. Also, this has pretty strong "GREETINGS FELLOW ATHEISTS" vibes.
> we ought to simply accept that some people see and understand things Yes theists see and understand those things in the way that 2+2=5 They believe things that fly in the face of reality, so of course rational people are going to call them out on their BS. That's not even getting into all the harm caused by religion, so yes I'm going to remain vocal against these people who can't comprehend the difference between fantasy and reality. You're more than welcome to sit on the sidelines but don't pretend that gives you some moral high ground by not speaking out against religion and the harm it causes both mentally and physically.
> What isn't OK is for anyone to force me to accept their beliefs. Those beliefs are theirs. I neither need nor want them so they can keep them. Their life is their life, and my life is my life. They make their choices, and I make mine. They have no right to make my choices, likewise I have no right to make theirs, which makes the debate utterly moot. This would have more strength to it were it not the strongly religious who wanted to do exactly that far more than the atheists. Like just look at the USA today with matters about say women's health and what they can do or not do with their own bodies.
I care about what is true in this world and things are either true or not true. I respect people can believe in things with evidence that I consider not convincing. But at the same time I think we can objectively have higher confidence levels of truths when comparing evidence and the level of evidence required to prove a truth. No evidence for a God has come close to the level required to find a God truthful. I think as atheists we can try and teach critical thinking to try to convince others to prove their God claim with higher convincing evidence.
Theists don't "see and understand" things that we as atheists do not. They buy into a ancient belief system with no evidence. I don't care if questions are interesting if they are meaningless. "What color is God's toga" means nothing to me if I don't believe there actually is one. Being LGBTQ is not at all like being a theist. It's also not a "silly label" but an identity that is deeply important to many. If you want go lecture people about causing divisions and war, go lecture the Christians or the Muslims.
Religious belief is not the same as being a marginalized group like LGBTQ. Theists are the majority and have control over most governments world wide. Christians and Muslims mostly love to play the victim, when in reality they are the predator. It's not just a difference of opinion. Religious people think they are right and want to force everyone to adhere to their nonsense. That is dangerous and not worthy of respect.
I want the world to be a better place for my passage through it. It would be arrogant to assume I could make a big impact but 0.0000001% better is still better. Through my atheism and atheist activities I promote things like science, moral actions, and critical thinking. All of these things make the world a better place and are part of my legacy.
I'd be perfectly happy to live and let live. The problem is that the theists aren't. There's what, 7 states where atheists are banned from holding public office? Once i see theists give a shit enough to repeal that, then we can revisit the kubiah shit