Is it better to educate the believer, or humour them with agreement and light discussion?
I realise there are no rules of thumb out there that will cover all situations; however, if you have a general code of conduct, or views toward this topic I'd like to hear about them.

It's better to make them assess what they actually believe any why, point out any fallacious arguments and the generalised reasoning they use - show them that such reasoning could be used to justify any supernatural phenomenon imaginable and then in the end hope that they realise that their theology is no more valid and has no more objective verification than anyone else's theology.

At best you could convince them that there is insufficient evidence for organizing their lives around an unprovable idea, mid ground would be to convince them that while Deism is still potentially true but unproven non the less that their theistic beliefs are completely wrong and believing any man made religious doctrines is far removed from rational thought, but more often than not they have too much invested in such a theology to critically analyse it, they have friends, family, colleagues, congregations ect that would potentially be demolished if they declared that their theology is unreasonable to believe. The emotional/relational cost of disbelief is far too great for some people to consider.

A lot of the time you will find that Theists will completely dodge questions (Yes i'm talking about you, frodo) or when their conclusion from reading of the bible is disagreed upon by either Atheists or those from other denominations they will claim things like "you need more background info to understand it" or "you didn't correctly assess which are metaphor and which are literal" or "you didn't want to believe it enough" - all of which are complete cop-outs that wreak of special pleading (Once again, take frodo for example).

Quote:theVoid:
The emotional/relational cost of disbelief is far too great for some people to consider.

I'm wondering if it's incorrect to remove something from someone that makes them happy, even though my hatred of that believe is probably greater.
Should I move on, forgetting the false truths?
Or would that be a weak minded moral victory, so adored by 'people of (no)faith'?!

(December 26, 2009 at 6:06 am)TruthWorthy Wrote:

Quote:theVoid:
The emotional/relational cost of disbelief is far too great for some people to consider.

I'm wondering if it's incorrect to remove something from someone that makes them happy, even though my hatred of that believe is probably greater.
Should I move on, forgetting the false truths?
Or would that be a weak minded moral victory, so adored by 'people of (no)faith'?!

It is incorrect to take something that makes people happy, but the idea that they need god to be happy is an illusion.

The problem is not that people feel they will be unhappy if they don't believe in God, it's their communities, families and friends who can reach an extreme level of intolerance for other peoples opinions and reject the person who lost their faith - that person will become isolated and alone, something that they fear so much that they won't admit their disbelief publicly and may never feel comfortable doing so.

(December 26, 2009 at 12:06 am)theVOID Wrote: A lot of the time you will find that Theists will completely dodge questions (Yes i'm talking about you, frodo) or when their conclusion from reading of the bible is disagreed upon by either Atheists or those from other denominations they will claim things like "you need more background info to understand it" or "you didn't correctly assess which are metaphor and which are literal" or "you didn't want to believe it enough" - all of which are complete cop-outs that wreak of special pleading (Once again, take frodo for example).

That's no more than a convenient way to dismiss something you lack understanding of.

If you're going to literally interpret what is always symbolic then yes I'm going to call you a fool. Yes the bible can be complex and pleading ignorance is also fallacious.

Quote:theVoid:
It is incorrect to take something that makes people happy, but the idea that they need god to be happy is an illusion.

The problem is not that people feel they will be unhappy if they don't believe in God, it's their communities, families and friends who can reach an extreme level of intolerance for other peoples opinions and reject the person who lost their faith - that person will become isolated and alone, something that they fear so much that they won't admit their disbelief publicly and may never feel comfortable doing so.

The topic of religion could always be about selling a social network while the belief system is just an auxillary, or otherwise an illusion.
I wonder what proportion of 'believers' literally don't believe in any of it. More importantly, how they put up with it if they don't!

---

Quote:theVOID Wrote:
A lot of the time you will find that Theists will completely dodge questions (Yes i'm talking about you, frodo) or when their conclusion from reading of the bible is disagreed upon by either Atheists or those from other denominations they will claim things like "you need more background info to understand it" or "you didn't correctly assess which are metaphor and which are literal" or "you didn't want to believe it enough" - all of which are complete cop-outs that wreak of special pleading (Once again, take frodo for example).

Quote:fr0d0 Wrote:
That's no more than a convenient way to dismiss something you lack understanding of.

If you're going to literally interpret what is always symbolic then yes I'm going to call you a fool. Yes the bible can be complex and pleading ignorance is also fallacious.

Here we have a perfect example of someone who is blind to their own indoctrination. The seemingly witty claim to dismissing actually counter-contradicts itself in a self reflexive dismissal of its own.

(December 26, 2009 at 6:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(December 26, 2009 at 12:06 am)theVOID Wrote: A lot of the time you will find that Theists will completely dodge questions (Yes i'm talking about you, frodo) or when their conclusion from reading of the bible is disagreed upon by either Atheists or those from other denominations they will claim things like "you need more background info to understand it" or "you didn't correctly assess which are metaphor and which are literal" or "you didn't want to believe it enough" - all of which are complete cop-outs that wreak of special pleading (Once again, take frodo for example).

That's no more than a convenient way to dismiss something you lack understanding of.

If you're going to literally interpret what is always symbolic then yes I'm going to call you a fool. Yes the bible can be complex and pleading ignorance is also fallacious.

Your claim that I lack understanding is exactly what I'm talking about, because of course you the defender of the position are the only one who understands it right? I never claimed that i am correct in how i view the bible, i just find it amusing that you always dismiss anyone else's conclusion the minuet it disagrees with yours by making arrogant remarks such as claiming that they lack understanding or that they lack context yet you never admit your own potential bias.

How do you pick and chose what is metaphoric and what is literal? Is the claim of the resurrection literal or metaphorical? What about the burning bush? Do you even have a methodology that can be reliably applied by anyone to draw the same conclusions or do you just cherry pick?

You think I'm the only one who understands it?? Erm... wrong. Strawman.

I don't dismiss anyone else's understanding at all. I'm totally open to any opinion. It is fact that the bible's purpose is not to present literal facts about history. What _is_ it's intent is theology. Yeah, if you suggest something else I'm afraid I've gotta pull out the joker card. How can't I? If I started quoting Lassie the dog on particle physics I'd hope that you would call me a twat.

You don't have to cherry pick... absolutely everything in the bible is primarily allegorical. That there may be literal accuracy or not is completely irrelevant to the actual message.

So God existing is allegorical to.......??

The bibe says God exists. God says 'I am' and you say everything is primarily allegorical. So what is God existing allegorical to?

Is not an allegory a figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another?

Good point. But where in the bible does God say that he exists/ I am? He didn't write he book, he inspired it.