Discussion thread for Important information for theists.

But religious preachers are funny.

I demand you take back these rules.

If you think these rules are the right thing to have then that's fine....

But I personally don't think an atheist would have any reason to be offended by a load of stuff they know...just isn't true...

However it IS interesting to argue against religion EVEN IF their opinions are very backward in some cases....because after all there's always a POSSIBILITY that us atheists might enlighten them in someway or atleast help them develop their curiosity and drive to question.

Thats my opinion anyway.

It's not that atheists get offended by remarks such as these, we are far too intelligent and enlightened

It's just that after a while they get really boring and stifle any chance for a decent discussion.

You should go over to the facebook discussion about God and see some of the nonsense that goes on there..

http://www.new.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...opic=12311

(October 5, 2008 at 1:28 pm)Darwinian Wrote: It's not that atheists get offended by remarks such as these, we are far too intelligent and enlightened

It's just that after a while they get really boring and stifle any chance for a decent discussion.

You should go over to the facebook discussion about God and see some of the nonsense that goes on there..

http://www.new.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...opic=12311

Yeah I agree that it CAN as you put it: 'get really boring and stifle any chance for a decent discussion.'

But I do think its ALSO important for us to practice our arguments against fundies and creationists...and really refine them....because they are the ones who are the most at risk and need the most help. Because 'they actually believe what they say they believe'...'good people do good things and bad people to bad things - but for a good person to bad things; it takes religion' etc, etc, etc.

And of course over the internet you are quite safe.

Providing you don't invite any psycho-fundies round to your house lol.

So I think both causes are important to some extent....Obviously debating with other atheists strengthens our evidence against god and we learn about scientific stuff....talking to intelligent less-fundie theists also helps us because we have a good discussion....but also talking with more fundamental theists also helps (IMO) because we can practice trying to help somewhat (however small) contribute to abolishing the slavery of faith. I think that more reasonable theists are closer to our level of understanding than fundies....SO.....the challenge is going to be trying to - to put it bluntly - de-convert the fundies.

I do tend to agree. After all, what we are doing now is simply 'preaching to the converted', so to speak.

On the old forum there used to be a few fundamentalist Christians, the sort who thought it was their destiny to convert all us heathens and it was a real challenge trying to get them to see your point of view.

So, in that sense it really does help you to sharpen up your argument and reaffirm why we think the way we do and perhaps help us to understand why they do what they do.

(October 6, 2008 at 1:53 am)Darwinian Wrote: I do tend to agree. After all, what we are doing now is simply 'preaching to the converted', so to speak.

On the old forum there used to be a few fundamentalist Christians, the sort who thought it was their destiny to convert all us heathens and it was a real challenge trying to get them to see your point of view.

So, in that sense it really does help you to sharpen up your argument and reaffirm why we think the way we do and perhaps help us to understand why they do what they do.

Yeah that's what I'm atleast TRYING to say...I don't know whether I'm very good at explaing

I wouldn't say a genuine atheist can preach though...I wouldn't call it preaching; de-converting is not the same as converting because it's not done through brainwashing...it's well thought out arguments...and it's loss of supersition - not planted superstiton. And what's preachy about well thought out reasoning that encourages questioning beliefs? And if done right will almost certainly lead to de-conversion and atheism. Teaching questioning is the opposite of preaching IMO...Preaching is just brainwashing: "This is right and don't you question it....it IS right."....and that's the opposite of questioning...of reason.

I know you put; 'preaching to the converted' in quote marks....but I don't think the word preaching should be used in context with what is in fact encouraging questioning of beliefs that if done right will almost certainly lead to de-conversion.

I think if fundies thought we were in fact 'preaching' to them and only doing the equivilent of what they're doing but 'preaching' non-faith instead of faith...I think it would not only be incorrect...but also would give them the wrong idea and it might encourage them to ignore what we're saying (even more than normally).

Preaching to the converted is just a saying and like the bible is not meant to be taken literally.

If a friend were trying to convince me of the Membrane theory of multiple Universes I would use the same phrase and it wouldn't have any religious connotations, although the root of the phrase has.

Like it or not, religion is ingrained in our history, society and language and as an old git I have grown up with phrases like these, giving little or no thought to their literal meaning.

Perhaps I should have said, "re-enforcing jointly held opinions" but I don't think it has quite the same pithy ring to it.

(October 6, 2008 at 8:22 am)Darwinian Wrote: Preaching to the converted is just a saying and like the bible is not meant to be taken literally.

If a friend were trying to convince me of the Membrane theory of multiple Universes I would use the same phrase and it wouldn't have any religious connotations, although the root of the phrase has.

Like it or not, religion is ingrained in our history, society and language and as an old git I have grown up with phrases like these, giving little or no thought to their literal meaning.

Perhaps I should have said, "re-enforcing jointly held opinions" but I don't think it has quite the same pithy ring to it.

Even though WE know it's not literal I think a LOT of religious people we talk to would take it literally. And in my experience atleast; this common misconception can cause a LOT of problems when debating with a theist. Particularlly when debating with a fundie.

I'd say: "Reasoning with the converted"

Which of course I think if done AND RECIEVED (I can't stress that enough) logically...leads to de-conversion.

(October 6, 2008 at 8:22 am)Darwinian Wrote: Preaching to the converted is just a saying and like the bible is not meant to be taken literally.

If a friend were trying to convince me of the Membrane theory of multiple Universes I would use the same phrase and it wouldn't have any religious connotations, although the root of the phrase has.

Like it or not, religion is ingrained in our history, society and language and as an old git I have grown up with phrases like these, giving little or no thought to their literal meaning.

Perhaps I should have said, "re-enforcing jointly held opinions" but I don't think it has quite the same pithy ring to it.

Your post hit home. I too have grown up with these phrases and still to this day say things like "God willing", "bless you", "God only knows" and "Merry Christmas" with no thoughts about literal meanings. They're only sayings...apothegms, proverbs, oracular utterances.

Yep. Its ok to say "God bless" etc, it only has the same meaning as "Santa bless" or "Zeus bless" etc, really:p
EDIT: My 888th post! Whoo!