(February 1, 2016 at 5:59 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If religion were eradicable, it would be gone by now, I think.  Some of the most frightening efforts to get rid of religion (Stalinist
Russia, China, North Korea) have all been abject failures.

That being said, I think a more reasonable goal would be to confine the influence of religious groups to religious spheres.  You want to pray?  By all means, pray your empty little head off.  But you've got no power at all to force others to pray, or to exact punishment for their refusal to do so.

Boru

That is only one side of the problem. The other is about persuading people to drop emotional thinking(aka faith) and to think critically about certain sets of irrational beliefs they hold.

Would you agree with that?

(February 1, 2016 at 6:14 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 6:12 am)Nymphadora Wrote: Because some people don't want that sort of hep. Besides, if we do that, we would be no better than those who try to push their thoughts onto others.

Of course you'd be better. What are you even talking about. One is about educating and instilling reason and logic, the other is about indoctrinating.

From your point of view. From the Christian's point of view, it is the exact opposite.

(February 1, 2016 at 6:54 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 6:14 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Of course you'd be better. What are you even talking about. One is about educating and instilling reason and logic, the other is about indoctrinating.

From your point of view. From the Christian's point of view, it is the exact opposite.

Thank you SC. That was my point entirely.

What I'm having trouble with EP is this:

1) I am aware of terrible verses in the Bible/Quran/Talmud etc. Where, in democratic societies, are these tenets like the hypothetical "if your wife does this, you must kill her" being preached or adhered to? What I'm getting at is that you seem to be crying for the outlaw of things that either aren't happening or already illegal.

2) You are going back and forth between eradicating harmful beliefs and the holding of irrational beliefs.

(February 1, 2016 at 6:54 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 6:14 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Of course you'd be better. What are you even talking about. One is about educating and instilling reason and logic, the other is about indoctrinating.

From your point of view. From the Christian's point of view, it is the exact opposite.

Yes, I know. And that is unfortunate. We ought to find a way to deal with that.

How about this:

Let people believe what they want to believe unless they involve you in some way.

I am an antitheist inasmuch as I wish it (Christianity) had never existed for all the damage it's done, cumulatively, to the world over centuries of cruelty and impeded scientific progress, all caused by meddling. So yeah, I would prefer that people did not believe in it because in most cases it seems that meddling is inextricably linked to it. But as far as they are not meddling, I can and do hope that they will 'see the light' someday and become atheists - my dad for instance - but it has to come in their own time, if at all, because people only change when they are ready, in themselves, to change. Just as someone telling me to quit smoking will not work until I'm receptive to the idea. So change comes from within, not without. Or at least real, lasting change. But in my dad's case I very much doubt that he will ever become an atheist, and though I wish that weren't the case, I do accept it and don't fight it (any more) and I think if he got ill I would not want to deprive him of the comfort he gets from it, even if I see it as a delusion, and so wouldn't rock the boat.

Quote:1) I am aware of terrible verses in the Bible/Quran/Talmud etc. Where, in democratic societies, are these tenets like the hypothetical "if your wife does this, you must kill her" being preached or adhered to? What I'm getting at is that you seem to be crying for the outlaw of things that either aren't happening or already illegal.

Fair point. 

Quote:2) You are going back and forth between eradicating harmful beliefs and the holding of irrational beliefs.

Ffs, I'm merely asking that we think about how to better persuade people to drop their religious beliefs. Some people here either don't care about that or think it's somehow wrong to do so. That I see as a problem.

(February 1, 2016 at 7:03 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: How about this:

Let people believe what they want to believe unless they involve you in some way.

It's not as simple as that. The choice is not between restricting freedom of thought and letting people believe in a fairytale. Why are you making it so black and white?

(February 1, 2016 at 7:07 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Ffs, I'm merely asking that we think about how to better persuade people to drop their religious beliefs. Some people here either don't care about that or think it's somehow wrong to do so. That I see as a problem.

That's not at all what your words have been saying, so you'll have to excuse the confusion. You seamlessly switch back and forth within posts between talking about banning certain religious thoughts, and getting rid of certain beliefs.

If your goal is to find ways to be more effective in persuading people to change their minds, you'd do well to do some research on this area of psychology. People demonstrably stick to their beliefs in the face of evidence. In fact, the more evidence you present, people will dig in more.

I am of the opinion that the only way people change their minds effectively is by exposing their epistemology. Peter Boghossian's A Manual for Creating Atheists is a fascinating read, if you have the time.

Also, you can check Anthony Magnubosco's Street Epistemology YouTube channel. He posts videos where he shows Boghossian's ideas at work.