Trying to save people

[Losty]

I'm very sorry, I am a poor speller and poorer proof reader. I often lack attention to detail. Thank you for pointing out my error, I assume I selected the wrong spell check word, and using light humor to make it enjoyable for everyone.

I meant to use the word condescension I suppose I should stick with smaller words in the future to avoid such embarrassment.

We’re just razzing the new guy a little; it’s good to see you can be light-hearted.

Yea besides, who doesn't like to be all wet?

[Mystical]

I try to be hands off, when it comes to those whom I know with religion. The more I try to be accepting of their beliefs, the more I realize that their lives are in struggle and torment, because of their beliefs. I haven't yet figured out how to help people like this, besides being sure of myself and offering a beacon of reason and light to their darkness, should they choose to take it.

[Statler Waldorf]

I try to be hands off, when it comes to those whom I know with religion. The more I try to be accepting of their beliefs, the more I realize that their lives are in struggle and torment, because of their beliefs. I haven't yet figured out how to help people like this, besides being sure of myself and offering a beacon of reason and light to their darkness, should they choose to take it.

Come on in Miss Luckie, the water is fine!

[Goosebump]

The OP asserts that atheists are rational and theists are irrational and somehow hampering humanity; is that also condescending?

I think, and I'm no philosopher, but can something not be shown to be rational or irrational? Could one not line up facts to support a conclusion and then call that conclusion rational as well as the reverse?

So I don't think asserting that one this is rational and another is not is condescending as it would imply that facts are rational or irrational and I don't believe that is a quality they can possess.

As for theists (I'm new to the term but I did look it up so I think I understand it now) being in some way a hamper or detriment to humanity is something that could be debated. I don't know if I possess the faculties to articulate such a debate with one such as yourself but I feel others might.

I suppose you would have to start with an agreement on how you define "hamper or detriment" and "humanity". If you could agree on those things then I believe debate to be possible.

If the individual who asserted that claim can defend it then is it condescending if it's defense is adequate and acceptable? I'm not sure, but it may be unpalatable, but I don't think that's the same thing as condescending.

[ShaMan]

The more I try to be accepting of their beliefs, the more I realize that their lives are in struggle and torment, because of their beliefs.

Compassion has turned my angst into understanding, and where I formerly saw hypocrisy, I now see the ignorance which leads there, and my zeal has become well tempered in its fervent expression.

[Tonus]

I'm very sorry, I am a poor speller and poorer proof reader. I often lack attention to detail. Thank you for pointing out my error, I assume I selected the wrong spell check word, and using light humor to make it enjoyable for everyone.

I meant to use the word condescension I suppose I should stick with smaller words in the future to avoid such embarrassment.

Don't worry about it, I can't resist a good setup. Laughter keeps us young.

We generalize frequently to make a point; from time to time it's bound to catch up with us. I was being semi-serious in my initial reply to you. I try to look beyond the person and address the argument because the argument is what is important. Don't let what you think they feel get in the way of that.*

*Probably not that useful coming from the guy who made fun of your spelling, but we work with the clay we are given. Or something like that.

[Statler Waldorf]

So I don't think asserting that one this is rational and another is not is condescending as it would imply that facts are rational or irrational and I don't believe that is a quality they can possess.

I agree for the most part; so then would you also agree that if the facts support Chad’s assertion then his assertion is in fact not condescending?

[Losty]

Assertions are not condescending, people are.

[Goosebump]

I think Losty put it to bed. I always like to know a brighter mind at hand to let me know when I'm being foolish.

[robvalue]

I didn't mean to be condescending, or condensation for that matter I never mean to cause offense, only to stimulate thought and discussion. My apologies if I upset anyone.

I'm sure from a religious point of view, I have oversimplified things. But that's kind of the point... each side sees the other side rather simply, in terms of truth.

If you are on the inside of religion then it is incredibly clear and obvious, simple, that your religion is true and that it is good. It is obvious that atheists are just missing something and are misguided, deluded... whatever you want to call them. (Am I getting this right? I have never been on the inside of religion myself. But I can only think that you must have this much conviction to truly believe.)

If you're an atheist, it's just as simple and clear that religious people have accepted an answer provided to them by others.

Both sides are clear about their position. No one can say with absolute certainty which side is "right", in as far as no one can ever know anything for sure. The best we can do is work with evidence and come to logical conclusions.

I think I have to agree that the biggest motivation for atheists to address theism is the harm that it has done, and can do in the future. I don't think anyone could deny the harm that has been done in the name of religion, and that it has a big hold over society.

From my perspective, I also see people trapped and wish I could help them. And from a theists perspective, they see atheists trapped by whatever has led them astray, which is keeping them from the truth. This is my tug-of-war. Both sides see bonds on the other, that they cannot see for themselves.

I think this is all an incredibly important issue, Matt Dillahunty said it is the "biggest thing going", it affects every aspect of life, and impacts the future of civilization. So to not be able to state clearly both side for fear of being condescending is to not address the issue properly.

Hope that makes sense! I think that is why I have become so into these kinds of discussions recently as I view it as perhaps the most important issue facing humanity.

Of course the tug of war is complicated by the fact that atheists and theists are suddenly pulling on the same side, although for different reasons, against theists of other religions! And if a theist has come to an atheist forum, I can only assume that they are at least interested in this tug of war, and listening to both sides of it And I am of course always open to the fact that I could be wrong, about anything, and if I am presented with good evidence I will reconsider my position.