[Watch Key Phone]

(Original post by Beast unleashed)
arek is right what is better? for a young child to know there is no santa clause when hes so looking foward to it or the truth? just an example of how sometimes not knowing 'the truth' isnt allways a bad thing

Looking after a child is different to 'looking after' a fully grown adult who can cope with finding out they are wrong and who may actually cause trouble if they keep believing something which is false.

[Beast unleashed]

it was just an example of how not telling the truth can be a good thing.
yes but what if we arnt talking about fully grown adults and if they cant cope with the 'truth'? you have to consider every factor not just asume.

[E.Blackadder]

(Original post by Arekkusu)
You're wrong, the truth isn't the most important thing, people's well-being is. I would live and let live, it doesn't really matter unless they're in your face with it themselves.

Also it's very hard to actually convince someone to change any belief they hold, the usual reaction is actually for them to artificially inflate their argument by taking a more extreme position than they really hold. This is because we are flawed animals who consider verbal discussion a display threat against the person.

but is individual well-being more important than societies well-being? i know it is a played issue, but if you look at gay marriage rights - on one side of the fence you have a bunch of people who have a high sense of well-being and on the other side you have a minority who are being denied rights and therefore have a lower sense of well-being.

individual well-being should be second to individual rights. freedom of speech is probably the most obvious example of that.

to me the problem with religion isn't that people believe in the supernatural, it is that it segregates and favors groups within society. there are larger and more important issues in society than well-being. basic needs and rights for everyone should be met before people can jump on the feel good wagon.

[FrescoDiMorte]

I'm an atheist but unlike 99.8 % of TSR I don't care what religion people are and their religion doesn't form a premature opinion about the person , so no I don't think anyone has a right to change peoples religious beliefs.

[mare?]

(Original post by M'Ling)
I was just wondering what fellow doubters of religion think about this. I have Christian friends, and when I show them the flaws of their religion, and show them some literature on why I don't consider myself a believer, you can see them start to doubt their beliefs.

Now, obviously the truth is the most important thing but, for some people, their religion gives them a sense of community (and lots of friends), a reason to live, and a sense of importance in the world. For these reasons, I sometimes feel guilty when showing my Christian friends things which may damage these securities.

So should we just leave normal laymen religious people alone, or should they be treated with the same hostility as the extremist believers who are causing much of the world's current strife?

How many of your friends have actually abandoned Christianity as result of your critical questions? (I'm not trying to make a point or anything, just wondering)

I don't see anything wrong with stimulating people to see things from a different perspective, as long as one does it in a civil manner of course. Ultimately it's up to them to decide which pill to take right?

[Dmon1Unlimited]

No it isn't immoral, just like it isn't immoral to change religions...it's just annoying when people harass you....

I get the sneaking suspicion that the thread implies that religion is the only source of morality hence the question when turning people atheist...

Atheists can have morals to... Morals are independent of religious beliefs of lack of...

I don't convert people and I expect people to do the same...

[willbee]

(Original post by M'Ling)
I was just wondering what fellow doubters of religion think about this. I have Christian friends, and when I show them the flaws of their religion, and show them some literature on why I don't consider myself a believer, you can see them start to doubt their beliefs.

Now, obviously the truth is the most important thing but, for some people, their religion gives them a sense of community (and lots of friends), a reason to live, and a sense of importance in the world. For these reasons, I sometimes feel guilty when showing my Christian friends things which may damage these securities.

So should we just leave normal laymen religious people alone, or should they be treated with the same hostility as the extremist believers who are causing much of the world's current strife?

No. As long as they're not harming anyone, don't try to destroy their faith. I was much happier when I had faith and once it is lost it is hard to get back. When you have faith there is the feeling of being connected to the world, there is this feeling that everything is going to be alright and that you will always be loved. When you lose faith, you lose that. I mean, you can still be loved and connected, but not in the same way.

I don't like not having faith, but it's not something you can choose really.

But you should never underestimate what having faith can do for someone, what it can mean to them, and how deep it affects them, so you shouldn't try to ruin that for them.

As for treating them like terrorists, I think that's terrible. Normal believers are nothing like extremist believers. If you're gonna make a sweeping statement like that then you might as well say that all Catholics touch kids and all ginger people are inbred.

Really, if you're going to make someone responsible for the actions of another, just because they fall into the same "category" as that person, then you're no better than the extremists you say are causing so much strife.

I personally don't think extremists are causing all the world's problems though. And I'd like to add that religion does an immeasurable amount of good, so take your "religion is the root of all our woe" implications, and do one.

If you want to make the world a better place, don't be such a dick.

[Banishingboredom]

I believe it is morally right to try and show people that humanism is more logical than religion.

If we keep quiet it will retard social change. A secular world would be significantly more enlightened, and no doubt happier and more peaceful.

At least in this century we've moved away from the irrational belief in the divine right of kings and the autocratic theocracies of the past few millenia. To believe that the ruler of your country was placed there by God and hence you should do whatever they say is a very dangerous system. This still happens in the Catholic church, which is why the Pope's views on contraception, marriage and homosexuality are poisonous to society.

If you look at the scientific advancements since the enlightenment it demonstrates just how quickly humanity can progress without the oppression of religion. Just imagine if the talents and labour of the men who designed and built all the amazing cathedrals and churches in the world had put their minds towards bettering humanity or making scientific advancements rather than building extravagant tributes to their gods. There was long a belief that medicine was interfering with God's plan, so think how much more advanced that would be by now.

As a humanist I'm an incredibly happy person. I feel free and unburdened. I'm not concerned that there's no afterlife when I die, because it means I'll live my life to the full. I give to charity, do good things for people and act decently because it is morally right, not because I have to appease a God or follow his orders to get into heaven. I think showing people that their religious beliefs are erroneous is right, but then again as Machiavelli said: "It is as difficult and dangerous to want to make a people free who want to live in servitude, as to want to make a people slave who want to live free".

[willbee]

(Original post by E.Blackadder)
but is individual well-being more important than societies well-being? i know it is a played issue, but if you look at gay marriage rights - on one side of the fence you have a bunch of people who have a high sense of well-being and on the other side you have a minority who are being denied rights and therefore have a lower sense of well-being.

individual well-being should be second to individual rights. freedom of speech is probably the most obvious example of that.

to me the problem with religion isn't that people believe in the supernatural, it is that it segregates and favors groups within society. there are larger and more important issues in society than well-being. basic needs and rights for everyone should be met before people can jump on the feel good wagon.

You can have faith and still believe in equal rights for the LBGT community.

For me the problem with atheists is that they don't seem to realise how complex religion is. They talk about religious people as if they're all one group, when actually they are thousands upon thousands of different groups and even in the same church many people will have different opinions. All humans are individuals and to talk about religious people as if they are not, as if they are just some ominous group that want to oppress everybody, is to essentially commit a kind of atheist fascism.

When I was religious I fully supported gay rights, and I think you'll find most normal religious people do. You'll probably find that most normal religious people aren't particularly outspoken about their beliefs either, and most think it a private, personal matter.

Sure you get Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on doors and homophobic Apocalypse Now characters trolling the streets of most major cities, but these are a tiny percentage of religious people; probably equivalent to the amount of people born with that strange third gender where you get a vagina and ballsack or whatever...

Atheists seem to love to pigeonhole every religious person as someone stupid, part of this stereotype where they hold primal ideas because they can't think for themselves and want to outdo everyone in how virtuous they can be. Reality is not like that. People don't fit in boxes.

Some people do ridiculously violent things when they have an ideology. This is not exclusive to religion. Take mass murderer Che Guevara for example... I know a guy (atheist) who practically worships him and wears his "Che-shirt" all the time, irrespective of what it really means to wear that man's face all the time. Atheists can be just as stupid and just as violent as someone who is hating on gays in the name of God.

I went to an all-boys school where pretty much everyone was atheist. It was the most homophobic place imaginable.

I agree that individual well-being should be second to individual rights, but I think a right is also not to be discriminated against, and I think atheists do that ALL THE TIME to undeserving religious people. (And you can argue that some may deserve it, but the fact is most don't.)

Religion is sometimes used as an excuse for oppression, but if they weren't using it, they'd find something else. Maybe "it's for your own protection", or in the case of oppressing homosexuality: "it's still unnatural therefore it's wrong" or "it should be treated like a disease / disorder"...

Anyway, I've just seen the time and I need to sleep.

[Door]

(Original post by Beast unleashed)
it was just an example of how not telling the truth can be a good thing.
yes but what if we arnt talking about fully grown adults and if they cant cope with the 'truth'? you have to consider every factor not just asume.

*arn't

Why dont you learn how to spell and write good grammer mate, before getting into any serious discussions?

[Fungii]

(Original post by PandyAndy)
We should leave them alone until their beliefs lead to actions that cause harm, either to an individual, group, or public policy.

Anyone can believe what they like, and their belief should not be an excuse for their actions. People should be judged by their actions regardless of their beliefs.

[ConnorTheYank]

It wouldn't really be immoral but if it is working for them, I would just leave them to themselves. Sometimes religion, although for the most part totally illogical, can provide comfort and solace for some going through a hard time. If they are the type that impose their religion on others, then they are fair game. I try not to go all rational agnostic on believers unless provoked .

[E.Blackadder]

(Original post by willbee)
You can have faith and still believe in equal rights for the LBGT community.

For me the problem with atheists is that they don't seem to realise how complex religion is. They talk about religious people as if they're all one group, when actually they are thousands upon thousands of different groups and even in the same church many people will have different opinions. All humans are individuals and to talk about religious people as if they are not, as if they are just some ominous group that want to oppress everybody, is to essentially commit a kind of atheist fascism.

i didn't say you couldn't have faith and support a specific cause or community. i used marriage rights as an example.

also i didn't say religion is made up of one homogenous group where none of the members have a difference of opinion. in fact a saying i usually say myself is that i believe there are as many religions as their are religious people because no two people believe in exactly the same thing.

however the point i was making is that a specific religion is a set of shared beliefs. we aren't talking about deists or people who describe themselves as "spiritual" we are talking about members of churches that are fighting for an agreed upon and realized cause. now you might say - "well that is just one church or one denomination of a religion, they aren't all like that!" but the problem comes in when the people fighting for a presuppositionalist cause rely on the innocent churches to legitimize their "religious beliefs." think of it as safety in numbers. the other churches have to support the religious beliefs (they don't have to agree, they just support their right to belief whatever nonsense they want) of others so they can protect their own religious beliefs from criticism.

When I was religious I fully supported gay rights, and I think you'll find most normal religious people do. You'll probably find that most normal religious people aren't particularly outspoken about their beliefs either, and most think it a private, personal matter.

again, doesn't matter. i didn't say they couldn't do that, i didn't say people weren't doing that. but large numbers are. it isn't just a handful of religious individuals fighting against issues like gay marriage or abortion. it is hundreds and thousands of churches (which are made up of agreeing individuals).

Sure you get Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on doors and homophobic Apocalypse Now characters trolling the streets of most major cities, but these are a tiny percentage of religious people; probably equivalent to the amount of people born with that strange third gender where you get a vagina and ballsack or whatever...

i wasn't talking about people outside of the normal religious population distribution. the people we are talking about amass in the millions globally.

Atheists seem to love to pigeonhole every religious person as someone stupid, part of this stereotype where they hold primal ideas because they can't think for themselves and want to outdo everyone in how virtuous they can be. Reality is not like that. People don't fit in boxes.

i could say you are pigeonholing atheists here too. but i can't be bothered going into that. i'm sure you just meant "some atheists" right? no people don't fit into boxes. but they do fit into distributions - a majority of which are right now fighting to prohibit the rights of others on religious grounds.

Some people do ridiculously violent things when they have an ideology. This is not exclusive to religion. Take mass murderer Che Guevara for example... I know a guy (atheist) who practically worships him and wears his "Che-shirt" all the time, irrespective of what it really means to wear that man's face all the time. Atheists can be just as stupid and just as violent as someone who is hating on gays in the name of God.

i'm talking about everyday religious people. not religious extremists.

I went to an all-boys school where pretty much everyone was atheist. It was the most homophobic place imaginable.

anecdotal evidence that proves nothing. what is the point of that story?

I agree that individual well-being should be second to individual rights, but I think a right is also not to be discriminated against, and I think atheists do that ALL THE TIME to undeserving religious people. (And you can argue that some may deserve it, but the fact is most don't.)

i'm sure plenty of atheists do. but two wrongs don't make a right.

Religion is sometimes used as an excuse for oppression, but if they weren't using it, they'd find something else. Maybe "it's for your own protection", or in the case of oppressing homosexuality: "it's still unnatural therefore it's wrong" or "it should be treated like a disease / disorder"...

it is fairly speculative, but i agree religion isn't the only mechanism to influence or realize oppression. but i am talking about policy setting which should be made solely on scientific evidence and secular discussion. religion shouldn't have a say. i don't care how unhappy or uncomfortable some religious guy is if it prohibits the rights of others. the religious guy deserves the right to freedom of religion, but everyone deserves the right to freedom from religion.

[A.sniper]

thats like asking ''is it moral to teach a child that thinks 2+2=5 that 2+2 actually equals 4''

there's several major world religions and they all believe they are the correct one, logically that means they are all wrong.

[E.Blackadder]

(Original post by A.sniper)
thats like asking ''is it moral to teach a child that thinks 2+2=5 that 2+2 actually equals 4''

there's several major world religions and they all believe they are the correct one, logically that means they are all wrong.

not necessarily. often there is more than one scientific hypothesis for so observation but that doesn't mean they are all wrong. the more there are the more likely any one of them being wrong increases, but it never means they are all wrong.

but i find it funny that all of the religions begin and operate in the same way - a prophet and a religious text followed by religious leaders and big buildings. you would think the actual god would deliver it in an original and more accessible way instead of copying our fumbling and short sighted attempts.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
How many times has the belief in Santa resulted in discrimination towards homosexuals or even people who don't believe in Santa Claus? Or affected the laws of the country one lives in?

oh yeah?

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by Fungii)
Anyone can believe what they like, and their belief should not be an excuse for their actions. People should be judged by their actions regardless of their beliefs.

I agree. Unfortunately,beliefs often are used as reasons for actions.

[Dragonfly07]

Terrible question. It's not like you're standing there on a stool telling everyone to come to Christ, or rather preaching against him. You're having an educated discussion with a group of friends and you're giving them an alternative point of view. It's up to them to decide whether they want to accept your arguments or not.

As far as I'm concerned, discuss the **** out of as many opinions as often as you possibly can. It's what humans do, it's in our nature, and it's how we developed so far - by sharing things and developing new opinions and ideas.

[A.sniper]

(Original post by E.Blackadder)
not necessarily. often there is more than one scientific hypothesis for so observation but that doesn't mean they are all wrong. the more there are the more likely any one of them being wrong increases, but it never means they are all wrong.

but i find it funny that all of the religions begin and operate in the same way - a prophet and a religious text followed by religious leaders and big buildings. you would think the actual god would deliver it in an original and more accessible way instead of copying our fumbling and short sighted attempts.

good point, most religous people can't argue against it though so that's why i always say it

[Insanity514]

I don't always agree with Dawkins but I think he is right that religion is thought of as an ultimate force, and one is not allowed to speak harshly of it. It's one of those views that have passed down through generations because of the ancient roots of religion. I see it as more of a debate than an attack, and I like it when religious people are willing to discuss their religion with me. An experience I had with a Christian man a while back was an example. I was pointing out the ways we know how old things are and he didn't have an understanding of dating methods and so kept coming back to the inaccuracy of all of the methods, even though everything fits together. It seems almost acceptable that religious people can refute science like this but one cannot refute religion.