Ex-theists are often like ex-smokers, sanctimonious and insufferable.

[Ravenshire]

Not all former smokers are born-again non-smokers Whatevs.

[ignoramus]

To me,  I just look at the religion of "peace" Islam.
Why aren't they peaceful?
Because, we, as apes, will twist and distort anything and everything for power and control.
So even if 99% of the world's theists are peaceful and loving, we can never remove the 1% unless we remove religion for everyone. Pouring the baby out with the bath water IS the only fix! 

And the 99% of people will still be happy.

[Thumpalumpacus]

People have need for dogmas and principles to guide their life and they end up replacing religion with something else that suits them, whether it's Richard Dawkins,a political ideology, a list of moral ideas or some philosophy you approve of.

It certainly can happen that way. If that does result, the best outcome is when the dogma decided upon is tolerance; and yes, even that has deep flaws.

My principle, which I garnered from my dad, is that I walk, talk, smoke, and joke -- meaning, I keep to myself and don't poke at anyone else, until they poke at me ... and at that point, I pay them back in the currency they prefer.

[Pyrrho]

I'm only going to reply to a few points, because you seem so far off from what I am stating.  It is to be hoped that this will get that idea across.  Given the lack of success thus far, though, I am less than sanguine about this.

...

Obviously not.  When someone says that the Catholic Church is an international pedophile ring, they are not thereby committed to the idea that every Catholic is a pedophile.  Of course, by contributing money to the church, they are voluntarily helping to pay for hiding the pedophile priests, so they do not entirely escape blame merely by not directly molesting children themselves.

^This one


I'll say this though, I think that's a massive non-sequitur. As far as I know, there's many ways you can contribute to the church, and namely you can choose to whom you want to donate, and when, and where, and how - Donating to a local small church isn't necessarily corroborating with paedophilia....

There are many denominations, and so donating to a small church need not involving paying anything to the Catholic Church.  But donating money to the Catholic Church is donating money to the Catholic Church.  Once you donate, they can use the money as they see fit.  Hiding pedophiles, for example.  Whatever they do, if you give them the money, you are financing it.

In the case of religion, religious people are encouraging poor thinking in others.  And in the case of the typical Christian, they are encouraging other people to take the Bible seriously.  They can properly be blamed for their affects on others regarding such things.

We all encourage poor thinking because no one is safe from dogma - And to believe we (ourselves, I and you, etc.) are the exception is very dangerous. Yes, Christians encourage dogma, but everyone is doing it, if it isn't religious dogma I can guarantee it's about something else. No one is exempt from groupthinking and dogmatic ideas. We all have them. I think religious people only encourage poor thinking if they force others to believe without choice or without the possibility to investigate and find answers - If the person being preached to searches answers and still decides to be religious, how is this an encouragement of poor thinking? I'm interested in a critical thinking society where people think and question most principles and rules - Whatever conclusion they may reach is up to them. 

...

Everyone?  You want me to prove something about all religions, and you make a claim about what everyone does?  Prove it.

If they said that, they would by lying.  They advocate things like having faith (i.e., belief unsupported by evidence), just like the others.  It is the same type of reasoning, regardless of which religion we are discussing.  The problem is not so much the content of the beliefs, but how they are acquired.  Faith is a dangerous thing.  If you want, we can have a separate thread on that subject.  A more lengthy discussion of the issue is in an essay by William Kingdon Clifford called "The Ethics of Belief":

Well they think you're lying as well... Here's the definition of faith according to the Oxford dictionary:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...lish/faith

Complete trust or  in someone or something:

Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual  rather than proof:

There's more definitions inside the link.

Isn't faith something most of us have? The way I see it, we all have a tendency to have faith in something ,out of will or need - I may not have faith in religion, but I have faith my girlfriend loves me - I say "faith" because I don't have verifiable evidence that she, in fact, loves me - She can perfectly have dinner with me, go out with me, have sex with me, smoke cigarettes with me and still be lying or manipulating me - But I have faith she truly loves me. Is this necessarily unreasonable? I'm interested in that topic, if you wish, please start it - You seem more informed than me on the topic. Note I never said faith is "good" or that it doesn't have problems - Of course it has.

It is definition 2 that you should focus on at your link ("Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof").  Your "faith" (definition 1) is irrelevant to definition 2.  Also, the key to understanding it is understanding "spiritual conviction rather than proof."  The "rather than proof" part means without proper evidence.  If it were supported by proper evidence, then it would not be "rather than proof."  This is the sense of "faith" that is most relevant to religion, not definition 1, which has nothing to do with evidence.  Indeed, the whole point of some religionist telling someone that they just need to have faith is that they don't need to bother with proper evidence.  Otherwise, they would just give the evidence.

...

Do you know that about 1/3 of the world's religions, including minor ones, don't require belief in god, right? If I presented you a religion that has little to do with believing in the supernatural but just requires following basic moral principles and meditation because it's good for your brain, would you say this is harmful or "without evidence"? (I think science says meditation can be good for people, if not please assume some innocuous activity instead of meditation). I just think you're making hasty generalizations. You are American, so you probably know more about Christianity (I get that, it's my case as well, being European and all...), but the three Abrahamic religions do not even represent the majority of the world's religions. Japan seems to be a healthy country with economic prosperity and high IQ, the majority of people are only atheist towards western Gods, but they practice Shinto (the Japanese religion) though most take it as a tradition and not as literally true - Would you say all Japanese are not thinking properly?

It is you who need to read up on Shintoism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto

It is full of nonsense.  However, I will grant you, it sounds a good deal less obnoxious than the Abrahamic religions, but seeing it conquer massive tracks of lands over a long timeframe would give us a better idea of its real potential.

And when did I state anything that contradicts that?  When have I stated that belief in one stupid thing entails belief in every stupid thing?

Here -

And that should be opposed.  Getting people to be unreasonable and believe nonsense, they are opening the door for the person to believe any other nonsense that they might stumble upon.  After all, they have been trained to avoid critical thinking, and so they are ready to believe other bullshit as well.  That preparation for believing bullshit is very dangerous and should be opposed.

It's a quote from an earlier post, and you are implicitly saying that believing one nonsense leads to believing more nonsense.
...

I was saying that encouraging people to believe things without proper evidence prepares them for believing other things without proper evidence.  I was not saying that believing one thing without proper evidence means that one believes everything without proper evidence.

The problem is in the habit or method one uses for forming beliefs.  If one does not regard evidence as important, then one is likely to believe all sorts of drivel without proper evidence.  If one regards evidence as important, then this will be a limiting factor on what one believes.  For example, it will be hard to believe that the earth is flat if one insists upon proper evidence.  But it is a very different matter if one does not care about evidence.

To quote Clifford:

Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence.  We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to, and the evil born when one such belief is entertained is great and wide.  But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and supported, when a habit of believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made permanent.  If I steal money from any person, there may be no harm done by the mere transfer of possession; he may not feel the loss, or it may prevent him from using the money badly.  But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself dishonest.  What hurts society is not that it should lose its property, but that it should become a den of thieves; for then it must cease to be society.  This is why we ought not to do evil that good may come; for at any rate this great evil has come, that we have done evil and are made wicked thereby.  In like manner, if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts.  But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous.  The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery. 

The harm which is done by credulity in a man is not confined to the fostering of a credulous character in others, and consequent support of false beliefs.  Habitual want of care about what I believe leads to habitual want of care in others about the truth of what is told to me.  Men speak the truth to one another when each reveres the truth in his own mind and in the other’s mind; but how shall my friend revere the truth in my mind when I myself am careless about it, when I believe things because I want to believe them, and because they are comforting and pleasant?  Will he not learn to cry, “Peace,” to me, when there is no peace?  By such a course I shall surround myself with a thick atmosphere of falsehood and fraud, and in that I must live.  It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my neighbours ready to deceive.  The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat; he lives in the bosom of this his family, and it is no marvel if he should become even as they are.

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

I will start that thread on this topic tomorrow, assuming I do not forget overnight.  If I don't start it within 24 hours from you first reading this, send me a PM if you still want me to do so.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well no but there seems to be a popular idea that those theists that come here to AF.org are answerable to each and every ex-theist with an axe to grind.  I less and less respectfully disagree, especially when the theist in question has done nothing to deserve any of it.

Some theists are well-spoken and not preachy. They deserve the good treatment they've earnt.

Others, though, it's not a matter of me grinding any ax, but rather, pushing back against some asshole making purblind assumptions about me based on my lack of belief. I know I'm not alone in this approach. I also know that those atheists who wish for higher body-counts in churches earn the scorn and calumny ... and also assist the broad-brush we all chafe under.

Assholes come in all stripes.

[Whateverist]

Well no but there seems to be a popular idea that those theists that come here to AF.org are answerable to each and every ex-theist with an axe to grind.  I less and less respectfully disagree, especially when the theist in question has done nothing to deserve any of it.

Some theists are well-spoken and not preachy. They deserve the good treatment they've earnt.

Others, though, it's not a matter of me grinding any ax, but rather, pushing back against some asshole making purblind assumptions about me based on my lack of belief. I know I'm not alone in this approach.  I also know that those atheists who wish for higher body-counts in churches earn the scorn and calumny ... and also assist the broad-brush we all chafe under.

Assholes come in all stripes.

Yes, agreed.  Like you say, repayment in kind.  So when the words and behavior are respectful I don't give a rat's ass whether their beliefs are true or whether others have done horrors in the name of the religion they espouse.  They have earned the respectful coin.  There are plenty of names for those who practice pre-emptive disrespect, none of them favorable.

[Huggy Bear]

[Thumpalumpacus]

Some theists are well-spoken and not preachy. They deserve the good treatment they've earnt.

Others, though, it's not a matter of me grinding any ax, but rather, pushing back against some asshole making purblind assumptions about me based on my lack of belief. I know I'm not alone in this approach.  I also know that those atheists who wish for higher body-counts in churches earn the scorn and calumny ... and also assist the broad-brush we all chafe under.

Assholes come in all stripes.

Yes, agreed.  Like you say, repayment in kind.  So when the words and behavior are respectful I don't give a rat's ass whether their beliefs are true or whether others have done horrors in the name of the religion they espouse.  They have earned the respectful coin.  There are plenty of names for those who practice pre-emptive disrespect, none of them favorable.

You've always been one of my favorite members here, Whatevs, precisely because of your unwillingness to broad-brush, which is a pet bugbear of mine.

Also, us old goats got to stick together.

[ignoramus]

I agree with both of you but I can also picture Hitler being polite and respectful when he needed to be.
Most monsters and modern day predators are like this ...

[Whateverist]

Life's too short to be an asshole even if 'they' did start it. Got to pick what your life will be.