So I told my mom that her belief in God was irrational...

[armyowalgreens]

And she went ape shit. I didn't mean to offend her.

I meant that her belief in god was not based on rational evidence. I have no problem with faith, but I think it needs to be identified for what it is.


Is there a better way to explain that to a believer without offending them?

[cabluedem]

1. In a word, no. Can you prove their is no God? Nope. nt

[armyowalgreens]

5. Lack of evidence for nonexistence is not evidence of existence.

However, that is not relevant to my OP.

[ZombieHorde]

48. Funny.

[laconicsax]

53. Can you prove that Amun-Ra doesn't exist?

How about Zeus? Ahura-Mazda? Baal? Loki? Horus? Quetzalcoatl?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't believe in any of those seven gods. Do you believe in the God of the Bible?

[LeftyMom]

77. Logic fail.

You win a list of common logical fallacies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Thanks for playing!

[sakabatou]

88. Can you prove that Zeus doesn't exist?

Absolute logic fail.

[Odin2005]

92. You can't prove a negative.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion.

[Deep13]

118. No, but fortunately others have. nt

[daedalus_dude]

2. What I don't understand is why many believers are so thin skinned when it comes to their beliefs.

If one truly believes in god, shouldn't one just shrug off people who voice skepticism, and take comfort in knowing that one is believing the right thing?

[Skittles]

9. YES

their faith is not very deep

[qazplm]

31. right

because if I called your most basic beliefs or values "irrational" you'd just shrug it off. Why you've never gotten into an argument in your whole life where you were upset. Cold and calm and cool one you are.

I'm not religious either, but I can surely concede there would be beliefs or values that if someone called them irrational I wouldn't be thin-skinned for taking offense.

[daedalus_dude]

40. Since I really don't have a set of "basic beliefs or values", you may be right.

I won't get worked up if you call that irrational.

Actually, I consider myself a Zen buddhist. Anyone is happily invited to spit on my Buddha statue.

[Odin2005]

93. At least I can admit that irrational beliefs that I have ARE irrational.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

33. Well, it really depends on how the person asking asks

There are some atheists on this board, for example, who object if another poster uses the word "belief" or "believes" about atheists. I try to take pains not to use that term when describing their thoughts about things just because I know it is offensive.

If someone who doesn't know me calls me "irrational", yeah, I can shrug it off. However, if a poster who has been around a while makes comments using words to inflame, that's a different story--I keep quiet and alert on them. The reason I am giving examples from cyberspace is simply because in the non-Internet world I have not heard anyone voice skepticism about the existence of something beyond rational thought. Perhaps I don't live around atheists, or perhaps they don't feel comfortable enough to speak out to my face about such matters.

[daedalus_dude]

39. The problem isn't really the existence of something beyond rational thought.

A person who understands what rationality is and what the problematic issues are that arise from demanding a strict causality in nature would not dismiss the hypothesis of the "existence of something beyond rational thought" as inherently foolish.

The problem with religions are that they cannot present any evidence in favor of their specific branch. Religious people don't simply believe in "something beyond rational thought". They believe they know god's name, what this entity demands from us humans, which hairstyle it prefers and how it wants to be worshipped. And they all contradict each other in some way.

How did you choose your particular branch of religion? How can you be sure it is the right one? What do you say to a person who is just as convinced that another branch of religion is correct and yours is wrong?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

54. My faith is universal Sufism

which says, basically, that all roads lead to the Source. So of course I don't think my way is "right" and another way is "wrong", as that is an individual choice. I can say that universal Sufism is right for me. And why? Because of my experiences which led me on this path. And since another person has had different experiences and life and views life from his/her unique perspective, whatever religion (or, for that matter, atheism) they have chosen is right for them. And people can change their concepts of God throughout their lifetime, so what is "right" for them now might not be "right" for them tomorrow.

Sufism stresses tolerance and respect for others and for their beliefs. The Ten Sufi Thoughts give a good insight into where I am coming from, and can be found here: http://sufiorder.org/ten_thoughts.html

I don't claim to have all the answers--or even any answer. All I know is that each day of life is an adventure, one for which we can be grateful.

[JerseygirlCT]

66. I don't believe there is A "right one"

I do think that Christianity is the right one for me. For someone else, there is likely a different path, equally right for them.

[daedalus_dude]

73. But then how do you define Christianity?

You say it is the right one for you, but which aspects of it?

I mean, Christianity contains some very specific things, other than believing in a single god. Believing that god sent his son to earth, that the son was crucified and "sacrificed" for forgiveness of the sins, that the son came back to life and was seen and so on. The miracles of wine and bread and healing, the creation of the world in seven days and so on. That god has a name and dictated the ten commandments.

If taken literally, then some of these things are deeply incompatible with other religions. A hindu will say there is not one but many gods. A muslim will say Jesus was a prophet, but not god's son. A jew will agree with you on the creation story and that Moses parted the seas, but not on any of the stuff connected to Jesus. A buddhist will say "just sit down and enjoy the scenery".

My point is, that if you say that these subtle and not so subtle differences are really not important, then what you are saying is that you don't really necessarily "believe" that Jesus was god's son, but rather that you enjoy the ceremonies and so on, and that it might help you to connect to something that you view as larger than yourself. Or maybe that you are in this specific branch because of family tradition.

But then your beliefs are fundamentally different from the traditional definition of "being a Christian", which normally implies accepting some things as truth, which are in part, fundamentally opposed to the way other religions see it, and which contain some very definite earthly things, such as "The man Jesus had a disciple named Paul".

Do you try to follow all the specific rules of Christianity, such as not eating unclean meat? And if you do, do you believe that they are from god?

If you think that all the specifics don't matter, and that perhaps we will never have the means to know for sure which ones are correct anyway, then you are coming dangerously close to agnosticism.

Of course you can still identify as a Christian but then it is just a matter of personal definition.

[JerseygirlCT]

75. Well, I'll try to take those one at a time...

One God. Yes, I do believe this, although I think it entirely possible that that one God is perceived by different people in different ways - including as many different aspects, such as in Hindu belief, or many wiccan paths.

Christianity doesn't necessarily demand that one accept biblical accounts as factual, or interpret scripture in a strictly literal way. I don't think we're meant to read the creation story as history, but as allegory. Many Christians would even approach the resurrection in that way - there's far more room for differences within the Christian tradition than you might be aware of. And of course, the idea of substitutionary attonement is absolutely not universal in Christianity.

Traditions/family, etc. Sure. I think that's definitely part of why I'm a Christian. It's quite likely that had I been raised in an Muslim tradition, that would have become the most comfortable path for me. To me, the point isn't the particular religion but whether its practice brings you closer to God. Having grown up with a particular tradition and liturgy, I've become comfortable with those traditions - they do for me what religion is supposed to do, bringing me closer to other people and to God.

There is no Christian rule about eating unclean meat. (Though personally, I'm not a big meat lover anyway - that's a taste thing). Some Jews and Muslims certainly follow dietary rules, but other than the fasting that's undertaken in one Christian tradition or another, there are no rules about food. Certainly, if we're to look at the example of Jesus in the Gospels, he wasn't particularly concerned about dietary laws, but rather about feeding the hungry.

As to agnosticism, I think you confuse a rejection of literalism and authoritarian approach to Christianity with agnosticism. I cannot ever remember not believing in God. I can certainly understand that of all the wonderful diversity of peoples in this world, there are diverse ways to seek relationship with God, and diverse ways of understanding or perceiving God. That doesn't make me an agnostic; it just puts me on the more open-minded, liberal side of Christianity, perhaps. I say to friends at church that I'm a universalist, unitarian, liberal Episcopalian. That about sums it up.

[daedalus_dude]

78. Then you have a very modern view of Christianity.

Metaphorically, alot of things can make alot of sense. But then, I think, the differences between the religions blurs away. If people are just using different metaphors to describe the same thing, then there really is no reason to speak of different faiths.

I think though that you are among a small minority in believers. At least most main stream churches I have seen insist that there is at least a certain degree of literal truth to their faith. Even from the most liberal believers that I know (catholic Jesus freaks, green protestants etc.), I have heard statements such as "I know that Jesus Christ saved me and not Buddha" or "My god is the god of David and Salomon".

I have to leave town. If you reply to this message I cannot answer before friday.

[JerseygirlCT]

112. Well, I think there is still a need for different faiths

as there are different people and different cultures, and I rather think that different approaches make sense. We all perceive things differently, and I believe God to be so much larger than can be completely comprehended by any one human beings.

I probably am slightly out of the mainstream, but not terribly much. And there is definitely a tradition in the Episcopal church of people thinking for themselves, so among Christian denominations, I'm probably in a good place, lol.

As for those who know that Jesus saved them, I'm fully ready to believe that's true. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that everyone must share the same perception of God, and that confessing to being saved by Jesus is necessary.

Personally, I don't think God much cares what religion (if any) anyone espouses. I think God's a whole lot more concerned with how we treat one another. If the path someone chooses leads them to greater care and compassion for their fellow humans... it's all to the good.

[Odin2005]

96. My fellow non-believers that claim to not hold irrational beliefs are lying to themselves, IMO.

I, for example, think ethics is irrational, all supposedly "rational" ethical systems are rationalizations of ethical instincts that, although they make sense in a evolution-of-behavior point of view, are logically incoherent.

to use a popular thought experiment involving trains, imagine two scenarios, you have 10 people stuck on one track and 3 people stick on another track. in the first scenario to save the 10 one track #1 you have to pull a lever, sending the train over to the other track and killing the 3 people on track #2. In the second scenario you have to push those 3 people on to the track in order to stop the train to save the other 10. From a purely logical, utilitarian POV there is no difference between the two, but to me, and for most people, the first scenario is moral and the second one is immoral, and that is instinctive response, it is true cross-culturally and one can't NOT feel in one's gut that the second scenario is wrong no matter what logical arguments are used.

[Why Syzygy]

3. Are you claiming

that it's "rational" to go around telling believers they are irrational?

[armyowalgreens]

6. I thought it was. Clearly I am wrong.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

34. I think it was a matter of a poor choice of words

Certain words can be offensive. For example, on this board I've found that some atheists object if someone says they "believe" in anything. So for those folks, the deliberate use of the word "believe" would be disrespectful. Note I said "deliberate". There's a difference between innocently using a word that inflames and doing it deliberately.

Another word which you could use to get your point across would be "non-rational". It doesn't carry with it the negative connotation of "irrational", which, in common parlance, is associated with people going insane and doing violent things, for example.

[Goblinmonger]

62. perhaps you want to look further into what is meant by rational

in cases like this. Do you suppose pi gets upset at being called irrational? (I know, not the meaning that is meant by the OP, but it illustrates the point that irrational doesn't have to mean crazy like it does in some common usage.)

[Jeep789]

4. Hmm, is belief in a higher power really irrational?

I don't think so. Plenty of scientists believe in one too. People form all walks of life and all over the world share a belief in some form of higher power. Not sticking up for organized religions (which have been organized by people who may be irrational), but I believe there is something.

I also believe that mankind would be better off if we followed the teachings of Jesus. I have a big problem with many organized religions.

To think the design of this universe is all by happenstance seems to me to be a bit irrational (but who am I to judge).

[armyowalgreens]

7. Just because a scientist believes in god does not make it rational.

The most rational individuals are capable of irrational thoughts.

I don't know why the universe exists or why it is governed by certain laws. But it is far more rational to admit lack of knowledge than to fill the gaps with assumptions.


But again, I am not saying that irrational belief is necessarily a bad thing.

[Jeep789]

8. You don't know so you can't say.

If you can't say, how can you claim someone else is being irrational? I think most people (unless God actually talks to them like Dumbya) would admit to a lack of knowledge but a lack of knowledge does not equal a lack of belief, i.e., I don't know for sure but I believe such and such. Why do you have a problem with that?

Claiming a belief as a reason to do harm to others is something I (and everyone) should have a problem with.

[armyowalgreens]

10. I have already said that I take no issue with faith. But that doesn't make it rational...

I can say that someone is being irrational if they are not being logical. Believing something to be true without evidence is not logical.

[eShirl]

16. maybe you should have chosen "not logical" instead of "irrational"

the word "irrational" is often associated with the idea of being crazy

[Buzz Clik]

24. Steadfast confidence that their is not deity is equally irrational.

You cannot prove a negative -- ever! -- so, harping about the irrationality of religious belief borders on hypocrisy.

[darkstar3]

68. Why should any of us have to prove a negative??

How does this not get THROUGH?!

Russel's Teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Pastafarianism, and so many other logical quandaries posed by atheists to believers boil down to the following:

If you're going to claim something, have some sources or evidence to back it up.

We do this in court, we do it in scientific inquiry, we do it pretty much every day of our lives. When someone makes a claim that stretches the boundaries of normality, we require them to provide evidence. Why should you get a pass? Because you say it's an article of faith? That's no different whatsoever from the statement "because I said it's true."

Do you also believe every spam email that you get? No, I'm sure that you don't. At least once in a while, I'm sure you use Snopes. So when an atheist, or someone of a radically different belief from your own, asks you to provide evidence for your belief, consider that our attempt at "Snoping."

And before you come back with that tired argument of "you're claiming something too!", remember this. I'm not claiming anything, I'm simply disagreeing with your active claim. That's how atheism works, which is why my favorite term for atheists/agnostics has always been "skeptics."

[Sal316]

38. Obviously you DO take issue with faith....

...because you felt the need to tell your Mom she was irrational for having it. Which makes you just as big a jerk as the "Turn or Burn" fundy street preachers who shove their tracts down peoples' throats.

[armyowalgreens]

56. No. No it doesn't. You really have no clue do you?

Me trying to explain to my mom why her belief in god is not based on logical evidence is very different than some asshole that tells everyone they are going to hell for being evil souls.

[Sal316]

81. Actually it's not.

Both are arrogant assholes telling the other person that their belief/lack of, indeed their whole world view, is wrong and they're morons for thinking that way.

The fact that you, and others like you here, can't see that you're just the flip side of the fundamentalist coin just amazes me. It's a stunning display of either ignorance or arrogance, or maybe both.

Besides, maybe your mom has experienced things that have reaffirmed her faith in God? Maybe the 'evidence' is clear and convicting to her? Just because she doesn't need God to come down and show her His long form birth certificate, drivers license, submit fingerprints, turn the sky plaid, stop all war, or whatever might pass as acceptable evidence to you, doesn't make her irrational.

So, yes, what you said was offensive as hell.

If you continue to have difficulties understanding this, I suggest you get a pet and name it "clue"....at least then you might have one.

[darkstar3]

84. Hey look! It's a faith-based superiority complex!

First off, telling someone to get a clue when you're in the middle of an honest discussion, even if you're clever about it, is being an asshole. So don't pretend you're any different from the rest of us.

Second, you misused the term fundamentalist, and I suggest you google it because I'm not going redefine it for you.

Third, and the key point here since it is the entire problem experienced by the OP, is that it's incredibly easy for atheists to offend believers. Let me show this point with some examples of people sharing their ideas on faith:

-Muslim to Christian woman: "Women who don't cover themselves are whores and should be stoned, as it is written." A Muslim would not only agree with this, but think the strong language used would be appropriate. After all, it's a lethal offense in the Qu'ran.
-Christian to Atheist: "You can't possibly be moral without faith in God." You're calling me immoral, which is socially unacceptable no matter what faith you are, and wrong besides, so I'm going to take offense. However, to you, this statement is tame, since you also believe I'm going to hell.
-Atheist to Believer: "Your faith is not based in reason." This is obviously offensive to some, and we have reasons already posted on this thread as to why, but to me it makes perfect sense.

Here's the problem: You can talk about your faith, when asked, to members of other beliefs without bringing up these offensive remarks. I, as an atheist, have no such recourse. My ENTIRE reason for being an atheist is that I don't see the logic or reason behind ANY current religion. I have NO other articles of faith or items to talk about. I can talk about and debate YOUR religion until the cows come home, but I don't have any religion to discuss. So when people ask me WHY I'm an atheist, how am I supposed to answer their question without offending them?

Tact is definitely required when discussing religion, but you can't just dismiss someone as an asshole or whatever because they accidentally offended someone. After all, it's obvious to me that you misspeak from time-to-time, just like the rest of us.

[laconicsax]

89. You assume that he's is interested in an honest discussion.

Sal's already shown that dredging up 3-year old mined quotes and ad hominem attacks are more his style. I'd almost be willing to bet money he posts his atheist t-shirt picture next.

[ironbark]

87. On “the flip side of the fundamentalist coin”

is the arrogance of absolute certainty.

The complete conviction that there is and can be no other way of seeing things that leads to intellectual deafness-

The inability to hear and reflect upon what the other is saying.
The constant misreading, misrepresentation or complete fabrication of the others pov.
The expectation that their questions be answered while any pertinent question you put forward is ignored.
The propensity to cut and ignore all pertinent points and just speak over or around them.
The inability to ‘depersonalise’ and distinguish between challenge/attack upon a point/issue and Ad hom.

These symptoms are chronic and legion among the ‘flip side fundamentalists’.

"maybe your mom has experienced things that have reaffirmed her faith in God?"

Like the birth of a child? The light in its eye? The giggle and the dribble the burp and the poop?
The myriad inexplicable illogical things that lead her to conclude that love and God exist?

Nhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa……Mums have eyes in the back of their head….you couldn’t trick a mum into believing such nonsense.

;-)

[darkstar3]

90. And YOU misused fundamentalist too.

Try again, and remember that Google is your friend. Oh, and BTW, projection is an ugly thing.

And would someone PLEASE explain to me how the simple biological process of reproduction is a religious experience?

Wait...OK, no jokes about Tantra...;)

[ironbark]

101. Nope, drew a parallel to the behaviours

not the beliefs.

The common ground resides in the behaviours listed, that they are not my “projection” is reflected in your “propensity to cut and ignore all pertinent points and just speak over or around them” and your prior “inability to ‘depersonalise’ and distinguish between challenge/attack upon a point/issue and Ad hom”

“…PLEASE explain to me how the simple biological process of reproduction is a religious experience?”

Therein resides the dilemma (yours)…you expect/require an “explanation” (presumably rational involving ‘critical thinking’ ;-)…and that is, quite simply, not the way human beings explain or understand all things. Experience is the first and greatest teacher and following that comes the narrative, the story, conveyed in art, music, theatre, dance. And if you take even the most cursory glance at the arts (or the experience of many mothers) you will find abundant “explanation”….and no doubt none of it will be to your satisfaction/ understanding.

[darkstar3]

102. A lot of dodging and assumption in that post...

First, you can't just redefine a word in the English language and use it however you see fit. Using the word "fundamentalism" in your way is a stretch of even the most basic grammatical principles, and no amount of hand-wringing or redefining can change that.

Second, I've been here less than a month. I'd like to see just one instance of me behaving in any way like what is described in your second paragraph. At best you're broad-brushing, and at worst you're exhibiting the exact same behaviors you despise and you are completely blind to it.

Third, you make the assumption that I've not even taken "the most cursory glance" at art (which BTW encompasses music, theatre, dance, and much more), when you don't know JACK about me. You must be tired after all the jumping to conclusions you do...

Fourth, you seem to have a rather thin skin for someone whose name is "ironbark."

And finally, a word about critical thinking: I'm sick of seeing that phrase in quotes. It is not a nebulous concept, and your mockery of those of us who attempt to apply reason and logic to the world around us is getting very old. If you can't contribute to the discussion, then please STFU rather than acting like a five year-old and trying to throw insults you don't understand.

[ironbark]

107. Have met each of your false assertions directly

and assumed nothing other than your continued cooperation in providing clear examples of the ‘behaviours’ previously identified.

“First, you can't just redefine a word in the English language and use it however you see fit. Using the word "fundamentalism"

For the second time (because you cut and ignored it the first), no definition or “redefinition” of the word ‘fundamentalism’ has been put forward, suggested or inferred. A parallel has been drawn between the >behaviours< of fundamentalists (not the beliefs that identify/define their fundamentalism) and the >behaviours< of atheists ‘on the flip side’.

In obliging me to repeat this simple and obvious fact (no definition of fundamentalism being offered) you confirm the assertions re behaviour-
i.e.
The inability to hear and reflect upon what the other is saying.
The constant misreading, misrepresentation or complete fabrication of the others pov.

“I'd like to see just one instance of me behaving in any way like what is described in your second paragraph”.

Instance one, see above- Your assertion that a word has been ‘redefined’ when no such redefinition occurred.
Instance two, Your prior assertion of ‘ad hom’ attack when no personalised remark had been made.
Instance three, when it is pointed out that no redefinition or ad hom exists you cut and ignore the rebuttal, repeat the assertion and provide no substantiation for the assertion/s whatsoever.

“you make the assumption that I've not even taken "the most cursory glance"..”

No, you just provided ‘instance’ number four.
I said “if you take even the most cursory glance”…that’s a projection forward regarding what you could do, not an ‘assumption’ regarding what you have done.

“seem to have a rather thin skin for someone whose name is "ironbark."

A “thin skin” would be in evidence if I was alleging ad hom/personal attack and then proving unable to quote and substantiate the attack.
I have not taken personal umbrage at anything you have said nor made any personal attack. You have claimed both and produced nothing to substantiate.

“…a word about critical thinking: I'm sick of seeing that phrase in quotes…”

That’s unfortunate because quotation marks are what are applied when someone is being quoted.
You could try doing it by quoting my alleged “ad hom” or my alleged “redefinition”.

(Perhaps some time spent in the care of a qualified grammarian could cure your “sickness” ? ;-)

“It is not a nebulous concept,…”

Never claimed, suggested or implied it was a “nebulous concept” and no such implication is made by applying quotation marks.
I am strongly suggesting many have little or no comprehension of the meaning of the concept and you are assisting my case.

“…please STFU rather than acting like a five year-old and throw insults….”

Instance five- The inability to ‘depersonalise’ and distinguish between challenge/attack upon a point/issue and Ad hom.

No doubt if you repeat “ad hom”, “personal attack” and “insult” often enough you may be able to convince some that an attack has occurred…even when you cannot quote and substantiate.

But a ‘critical thinker’ will require the provision of evidence because it is not a
‘nebulous concept’ ;-)

I’d like to thank you for verifying and demonstrating those behaviours identified in prior post…I look forward to your provision of proof conclusive when you, once more, fail to substantiate your “ad hom/personal attack” fabrications.

[darkstar3]

108. You're like a dog worrying a bone...

You just latch on and don't give up. Your repetition and failure to recognize projection bore me. We're through here...

[ironbark]

113. The bones of contention were all yours.

Assertions of ad hom, assertions of redefinition of words.

If you can’t dig them up then run kitty run.

[darkstar3]

114. We should hook you up to a PTO...

You spin faster and more efficiently than most 2-stroke engines.

Since I feel like all we're doing here is :banghead:, I'm dropping the subthread, which is why I said "we're through here" to begin with. But you just couldn't resist getting that one last little dig in, could you? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. After lurking here for five years I expected before I even signed up that you and I would butt heads. I guess that's just life...some people, no matter how civil they might be in everyday life, just somehow manage to set each other off. There's a quote from Babylon 5 coming to mind, something about "comets that flare as they fly too close to the sun," but I can't remember the whole thing right now.

Unfortunately, as much as I wanted to drop this subject, something in your last post has piqued my curiosity (and gotten my goat besides). Since it is universally depicted that DOGS are the ones who dig up bones, why did you choose a cat (or more to the point the more diminutive "kitty") as the animal in your parting-shot-insult post? Were you confused? Do you have a cat who digs up bones? Do you have something against dogs in general? Or could it be, as I suspect, that you wanted to throw a more sexist, synonymous insult but were afraid you'd get alerted?

[ironbark]

115. “Five years” of lurking?

And ‘critical thinking’ had not led you to an understanding of substantiation?

[darkstar3]

116. Sweet MOSES is that YOUR cat?!

How much does he/she weigh?

[Odin2005]

98. Take a logic class.

[Sal316]

100. Uhh.. I have....

....along with numerous classes in philosophy, theology, chemistry, and physics. I'm a graduate of the US Navy Nuclear power program and hold a BA in Theology.

So, as a word of advice, figure out who you're talking to before you make statements like that in the future. It'll keep you from looking like a fool.

[EvilAL]

117. Quick,

What's avogadro's number + the number of the beast?

[ZombieHorde]

49. I don't know if there are magical toasters which can turn into a swarm of puppy eating bees.

I better not rule out that possibility.

[BurtWorm]

71. There's no getting around that belief in something you have no proof really exists is not rational.

[Odin2005]

97. Read Kant. Religious belief cannot be logically justified.

Every so-called logical "proof" of God's existance has been proven to be fallacious.

[geckosfeet]

11. The fact that our collective understanding of how the universe came into being is incomplete

does not somehow mean that 'higher power' must be running the show.

Granted, the universe is truly impossible to comprehend in it's complexity and vastness, but I do not see how that leads one to conclude that there is 'higher power' behind the curtain.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

35. "Higher power" has connotations of a hierarchy and separation

I think it is fun to look at the concept of Whatever is behind the universe as not being separate and aloof, but rather right there, within each cell, within each atom and subatomic particle. This God-concept is not unique to me--you can read about it in the Upanishads, a collection of writings thousands of years old. It is found in many Native American beliefs, as well as the mystics of most faiths. What is fun about this concept is that it can be played with, and explored. I know of scientists who are examining the possibility of consciousness residing in subatomic particles, and are conducting experiments to show the power of thought of the researcher on the outcome of his/her experiments. And so, perhaps, as the Sufis say, everything is God. Or as the Buddhists say, nothing is God. Or perhaps it is the same thing. :)

[geckosfeet]

63. I think that it is more in you. The 'higher whatever' is something that we create.

We give it its power. We seem to define it to fit our needs. It is a nebulous concept often being referred to as being out there, everywhere, or nowhere.

I agree that the 'higher whatever' is within humans who give it a name, a place, and aspire to be with it eternally.

But to ascribe some kind of intelligence, benevolence or any human personality trait to it is nonsense.

[Q3JR4]

28. ...

One day, not so long ago--in terms of the age of the earth--people from all walks of life and all over the world believed the earth was flat. They believed in unicorns, and fairies, and trolls, and giants, and dragons.

I don't believe in dragons. I don't believe in unicorns. I don't believe in fairies or trolls. I don't believe in any of these because there is no evidence for their existence. I put gods and goddesses and demons and angels into the same bag.

Any being complex enough to have created every living thing on this planet, all the atoms, the bits of random dust, the bacteria, every molecule of water, the sun, photons, muons, taus, all the other planets, the galaxies, every other star, the meteors, each chunk of ice orbiting any far off random bit of dark matter, and each bit of fluff in the middle of "empty" space who is capable of hearing and answering the prayers of 7 billion humans is simply him/her/itself too complex to exist. If you want to talk about complexity, 100 trillion living creatures is NOTHING compared to that especially if there is life on other planets.

Given a choice between that being and the assumption that we are on this planet having this conversation only because of three or four simple rules that allow complexity to develop, I can't--in good faith--give credence to the existence of god(s). This is especially true when you consider that theories like evolution that purport to do the same thing (talk about where life came from) has scientific proof.

This is the only conclusion I can come to because, so far, no one has--despite 10,000 years of searching--conclusively shown the existence of god(s).

Furthermore to say that the unbeliever has to disprove the existence of God while the believer goes his/her merry way is to say that the those who don't believe in unicorns have to show conclusively that unicorns don't exist. Or that dragons don't exist. Or that fairies don't exist. It can't be done, but owing to the fact that no one has every produce evidence for the existence of any of these creatures, the probability that they exist is extremely low.

Just like the probability that god(s) exist.

Q3JR4.
Which is not to say that you can't have your own irrational beliefs. I support the right of people to believe whatever they want to believe just as long as they don't try to a.) convert me, b.) persecute me, or c.) force me to conform to something I don't believe in.

[ironbark]

29. An all round nice post Jeep

Refreshing to see.

[stopbush]

46. People may disagree on what god created the universe, but happenstance?

It all comes down to whether it was Odin or Zeus who created it all. People from all walks of life throughout history have believed so. People should pick one or the other, don't you think? To not believe either was involved is purely irrational.

[elocs]

12. So, why exactly is it your job to prove to a believer that belief in God is irrational?

"I didn't mean to offend her." Really? You actually gave that some thought before you spoke? What exactly did you realistically expect?

[armyowalgreens]

13. Whoa. Who said that I thought it was my job? We were debating religion.

I don't run around to people telling them that their faith is irrational.

[Buzz Clik]

23. Actually, your last question in your OP suggests that is exactly what you are doing.

If your OP is simply in the context of an intellectual debate about religion, then it's your mother who has the problem. However, if you have a tendency to nag people about their religious beliefs, then the problem is yours.

Your OP doesn't give us enough information to know for sure.

[armyowalgreens]

60. No it doesn't. But if that is how you feel, then so be it.

I am often in debate with people. That comes with being in college. And it often goes to religion.

I don't hunt people down just to tell them that their religious beliefs are irrational. Sorry to disappoint you.

[elocs]

47. But you did feel the need to set your mom straight to your way of thinking.

You did feel it was OK to point out to her that her belief in God was irrational. To be honest, were it my mom I think I would just let it lay. I wouldn't feel the need to win points by crushing my loved ones beliefs.

[heidler1]

76. It's easy to tolerate most peoples assumptions, but if it's your own Mom

you can feel that it's necessary to clear it up. I did that with my Mom when I was about twenty and regretted doing it for years. I'd say that it did cause her to see me differently, but her love was everlasting and she learned very quickly to step around the problem. Twenty year olds perhaps put too much faith in total honesty.

[ejpoeta]

14. i never really understand why anyone has to go telling another person that what they believe is

anything. Unless that person came to you and tried to push their beliefs on you. I will admit that I had a nice discussion about the bible and what I thought of it with a woman once... but it was after she tried to enlighten me about her god. My dad was a catholic.... he would try to get us to go to midnight mass for christmas or whatever. I would politely say no. I respected his belief and his faith right to the end. Even participating in some last rites type of prayer at his deathbed. Do I believe in that stuff??? no. but I respected his belief in it. This after I was dragged to church for the first many years of my life. I went to catholic school and CCD classes. But once it was my choice, I didn't go.

I know that I had an uncle who came from Vermont to visit my Dad. I bit my tongue with him as he passed out his little pamphlets to us. I showed respect because he was my father's brother and I can tolerate a lot.... as long as he didn't try to 'save' my dad. I had heard about what my uncle had done when my grandparents were at the end.... they were catholics like my dad... and ed got them to sign something that they accept jesus christ... to me this man was spitting in the face of their beliefs at the end of their lives. I was going to ensure he didn't do any of that shit around my dad. As much as I don't believe in it, I would protect my father to his last breath from that kind of insult and disrespect. His brother did not attempt that, luckily for everyone. The priest that had come to give my dad communion and confession a few days before he died kind of intercepted when my dad's other brother came in and started that bs.... at least it was only to us, or else he might there might have been a problem. The priest ensured my uncle that my dad had accepted jesus and everything was fine.

I have no problem with people having their beliefs. Not my uncles.... not my dad. I joked how my dad had finally gotten us all to participate in church again as we stood around his bed saying the Our Father. Only for him, I tell you. It wasn't about me at that moment... It was about him and respecting his beliefs at that moment as he was in his last days. I never thought about if his beliefs were irrational. I only considered for my own life what they meant and what they wee for me. It is not for me to decide whether someone else's faith is rational or irrational. Just as I do not try to decide for another whether they should do anything else. Who am I to tell another whether they are right or wrong about something like that. I wouldn't take kindly to someone trying to tell me how I should think or feel or believe.

[armyowalgreens]

15. See post 13

[Ms. Toad]

17. As I am sure you know, "irrational" is not a neutral word.

Had you phrased it that "her belief in god was not based on evidence," I suspect it would have been a much pleasanter debate - but I also suspect you're not really looking for a better way to explain it.

[armyowalgreens]

18. Well you suspected wrong...

The very reason why I was surprised by the fact that she was offended was because I was using the term "irrational" in a purely scientific manner. It was the most appropriate word I could think of.

I attempted to explain to her that I mean it as believing in something without evidence, but that didn't help. The neutrality or lack thereof is completely dependent on the one receiving the message.

[eShirl]

20. You sound like a confused Vulcan on a ship full of Humans.

[Crunchy Frog]

95. +1

[qazplm]

30. oh come on

communication is a two-way street so putting it all on her is a bit, ummm, irrational.

I'm agnostic myself but I would never think to tell someone that their beliefs were irrational, not even in a debate, of course, I have communication skills and know that such an approach "rationally" will lead to an unfavorable response by just about any average person and would tend to be hurtful and provoke a defensive reaction.

That is the "rational" outcome of the word choice you selected. Therefore, you were being "irrational" by using that word and then being surprised that it garnered a negative reaction.

See how negative that word is? Pretty hard to come up with a non-hurtful way to use that word to describe someone else's believes on just about any subject except perhaps mathematics and irrational numbers. Seems to me like you are a smart guy, who likes to approach things in a way you think is scientific. May I suggest you consider doing more work on how to approach people in a manner which is more diplomatic or concerned with feelings and emotions.

[Ms. Toad]

52. Thank you.

My brain was not working well enough to come up with that coherent explanation.

[JerseygirlCT]

67. Well said. nt

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

36. "The neutrality or lack thereof is completely dependent on one receiving the message"

That is true. However, when one knows the receiver, one has a notion on how the words used would be received. Therefore, if your point was discussion, it fell upon you to choose a word that would open discussion rather than close it.

To use an example that is not religious--when I talk to right wingers about health care reform, I choose to address the issue this way--"Have you read the bill? I have. I decided there was so much hype going around on radio, TV, and the internet, the only way I could find out for myself was to read it. It's not hard--it's set up like an outline, and if you read the first four pages, which is the table of contents, you can know exactly where to go in the bill to read specifics." This has worked. I've wound up with people who were adamantly opposed to the bill looking over my notes, which use the wording in the bill without "spin" by me--and agreeing on many parts of it.

[Ms. Toad]

51. You really don't think when you suggest someone is

being irrational that isn't a loaded term?

Here are the first three definitions I found for irrational:

a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike. You must live in a very different world than I am.

Those are all pretty negative - and have nothing to do with the person on the receiving end of the message. Suggesting she doesn't have evidence for her beliefs is relatively neutral; suggesting her beliefs are affected by a loss of usual or normal mental clarity is not really neutral.

Irrational is closer to believing something that is contrary to evidence than to believing something for which there is an absence of evidence.

[fasttense]

19. A person who believes in something with no factual basis

does not want to hear about reality.

Like the child who still believes in Santa Clause, just pat them on the head and smile. Their beliefs don't hurt you, Or do they?

The anti-choice crowd wants to force their religious laws on you. They want to force Gay and Lesbians into jails or at least closets.

The bush and now President Obama wants, and does, turnover hundreds of millions of tax dollars to religious institutions. These religious institutions even get a free ride on their taxes, while you and I foot their bills.

The whole Iraq war was one giant Christian Crusade against Muslims.

So I guess irrational beliefs do hurt everyone.

[Gman]

21. Why are atheists so obsessive compulsive about telling somebody that?

It's like they just HAVE to do it. They can't help themselves. So help us here. Just why do you think it's your business to tell someone this? Wouldn't you agree it's more about you than it is your mom? DOn't you think that was a rather petulant and disrespectful thing to do?

[dmallind]

79. do you perhaps see the irony here?

Complaining that atheists feel perfectly able to tell somebody that they should have different beliefs? Isn't the entirety of religious indoctrination, evangelism, instruction and promotion the exact same thing? Why SHOULDN'T atheists be expected to do the same thing believers do? Why don't we have the right to espouse our opinions when believers are never called petulant and disrespectful for advancing their own? Atheists don't threaten eternal torment, nor the loss of eternal bliss; we don't say you cannot be moral or decent unless you are atheistic, or tell you you have to behave according to a specific set of ancient cultural mores. At the very worst atheists who are a bit aggressive will tell you you should be more logical and empirical in forming opinions, and that if you are not, you'll end up believing in glorified fairy tales. How is that more disrespectful and petulant than what religionists say is wrong with nonbelievers?

[Buzz Clik]

22. "I didn't mean to offend her." Your comment was offensive even though your intent was not.

"Is there a better way to explain that to a believer without offending them?"

Why are you evangelizing your atheism at all? My biggest problem with fundies, Mormons, and Jehova's Witnesses is their ridiculous need to constantly shove their beliefs in my face. Trust me -- your mom is equally annoyed by your insistence in helping her see the light.

Let it go.

[TCJ70]

55. It's amazing to me how people can shrug off...

...responsibility for their actions by claiming it wasn't the intent. Just because you didn't intend it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[tazkcmo]

25. How about just leave her alone?

Seems pretty simple to me. Then again, you might be one of those people that have no respect for others and feel oh so superior when you point out the foolishness in their beliefs. I hope you made your mother cry too. Classy!

[armyowalgreens]

58. See post 13. Then insert foot in mouth.

[izquierdista]

26. "So you take it on faith?"

Once you get people to admit that they "take it on faith", you've proved your point. Faith means the lack of a reasoned, rational belief, and with a lack of information, sometimes that is all that is left. Very primitive people have a lot of superstitious beliefs that they take on faith (what their elders told them) simply because they have no experience with and no way to conduct a rational inquiry into the matter at hand.

[Buzz Clik]

43. A lot of people feel they have personal evidence of God's existence.

They believe in the Bible, and the their lives are touched by religious experiences. It's not always an intellectual matter, and their belief is not always irrational. Their faith seems irrational (or worse) to us, but we aren't seeing it from their eyes.

[izquierdista]

59. A matter of definition

I'm just using "irrational" in its most basic meaning: lacking derivation by a rational or reasoning process. If they tell you they believe something on faith, then no reasoning need have been involved. It's not meant derogatorily, as there are lots of things in life that don't require a reasoning process (e.g. selecting a mate, buying clothing, deciding what to have for dinner, etc.).

[ironbark]

27. You could explain how religion

is “worse than Crystal Meth”.

That’s an acceptable local critical thinking pov…she should see the reason in that.

[Buzz Clik]

44. LOL! You really think that would work?

I'm thinking that comparing her to a meth-head would be worse than calling her irrational.

[ironbark]

72. Well, if such critical thinking and logic failed

the family and friends could always organise some ‘re education’.

This can be tricky because Mums, having eyes in the back of their head, can see it coming…and where it’s going.

A family might want to start with Gran if they are aware she’s experimenting with or using religion…you know the warning signs, missing on Sunday morning, suffering delusions of community, belonging, meaning or purpose.
Grans are much easier to catch and treat than Moms and organising an ‘Intervention’ for her can be a rational critical thinking fun whole family affair.

Good luck.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. Yes

It is a different way of thinking about things. Rational thought is based on evidence that can be measured in some way. Non-rational thought (rather than irrational, which was what got you into trouble, because it has other connotations) literally uses another part of the brain. Amongst non-rational thought are those "aha" moments where the mind sees something in a completely different way. This type of creativity is found in non-rational thought, simply because it is NOT based on measurable evidence. To generalize, rational thought is considered more left-brained, non-rational thought, right-brained.

Hope this helps. Sounded to me like you really didn't mean to offend your mother.

[Odin2005]

99. But intuition is only a source of ideas, it does not JUSTIFY those ideas.

"Aha" moments do not justify their own truthfulness, they must be TESTED against reality otherwise it is just conjecture and speculation.

[rrneck]

37. In common useage

the term irrational is synonymous with crazy. I prefer the term arational or non-rational. Religion doesn't have to make sense.

[sailor65]

41. Did you raise yourself?

You appear to be a college student, or not long out. Who do you suppose made that possible? Do you think perhaps your mother's faith had something to do with the years she devoted to your breakfats, lunch, difbnner, laundry, the undoubtedly disgusting bedroom, and the support you are probably still getting?

Rather than bothering with the religious debate, I'll just point out that your mother invested a whole lot in you, and deserves better than what you gave her. Pull your head out and give her the deference she earned. Maybe after you've made something of yourself and somehow repaid the massive faith she showed in you, you can return to set straight her "Irrationality."

[Buzz Clik]

45. +1!!!

I am always curious about these kinds of discussions. This being DU, we have far more threads of the type, "So, I told my rightwing father/mother/sister/brother that conservatives are all evil, and the ensuing fight ruined Thanksgiving dinner." Jeebus.

[armyowalgreens]

57. Are you done preaching yet?

Because we were in a debate and she was attacking my stance just as much as I was attacking hers. So your entire argument that I somehow cannot question her faith is complete bullshit.

[Ms. Toad]

61. I had a similar discussion with my (college) daughter

After a few attempts to explore where she was coming from that were promptly shut down with assertions that what she was saying was obvious, or everyone knows what she was saying, etc. I (politely) invited her to come back when she gets older and knows less.

I also told her that I would love to have a substantive discussion with her about (in our case) whether schools were inherently a poor way to educate kids, and whether self-motivated/directed learning was possible outside of school even as young as kindergarten without heavy parental involvement, but that I couldn't get past her dismissive condescending comments that shut down conversation. (It's obvious, mom, that everyone learns better when they learn on their own.)

The next day we actually had a productive, pleasant conversation about religion that could have turned out very similar to the OP's conversation (or to our own of the night before), but because she asked questions that invited conversation (and responded substantively to questions I asked) rather than making condescending dismissive comments as she had the previous day, we actually talked about faith, evidence, lack of evidence, and the distinction between scientific descriptions that accurately model the real world and the "motivation" for the world acting in a nice neat way that can be described by those scientific models.

For me, as a parent, it has nothing to do with owing me something because of my investment in her, or deserving better because I'm her parent. It has to do with nudging my child to figure out how to have a conversation with anyone that invites real discussion rather than shutting it down, one in which both parties really listen to each other, learn how to find common ground and to identify differences - a process which helps both parties grow and ultimately, I hope, solves problems rather than creating conflict.

[darkstar3]

69. How's the air up on that high horse?

I'm sure your parents (or maybe a single mother?) DID invest a whole lot in you. That's great, and more power to you, but not everyone has the same relationship with members of their family.

Furthermore, and I mean this with all the emphasis I can muster, being the people who raised me gives my parents no right to extra respect in the field of debate. If we engage in debate, we both come to the field with the same standing.

Age does not make wisdom, only experience can do that. And for the record, age =/= experience. I am highly experienced in the field of computers, and less so in the field of physics. Ask me about biology, however, and I have no good answers. That's the way experience works...

Maybe after you've made something of yourself and somehow repaid the massive faith she showed in you, you can return to set straight her "Irrationality."
That was a lot of assumption rolled into one sentence, but what surprises me on this board is the ageism. Some of the most prolific minds of the past made their contributions to science and art and history at EARLY ages. If we had completely marginalized them due to their youth, what would have happened?

[Critters2]

104. +1 nt

[MikeH]

106. delete

[Jim__]

42. Before discussing religion with someone, you might ask them if they're comfortable with that.

If someone is not comfortable discussing religion, and they're not forcing their views on you, then, if there's no pressing reason for the discussion, it's probably best to leave it alone. Especially with your mother.

[rug]

50. Is it rational to base all explanations on reason alone?

[dmallind]

80. Demonstrate another epistemological source that works and we can talk. NT

[rug]

83. Gettier, but I don't want to talk to you. NT

[emdistortion]

64. You see, the thing is

That faith is a choice to believe something that has no rationality. I choose to believe in a God, despite the conflict between that and my scientifically trained mind. I mean, how outlandish are these myths which people believe - miracles, ascending to the sky, body and blood of a "savior". We convince ourselves that we are better than than the polytheistic religions but we're aren't really that far detached.

[JerseygirlCT]

65. Just one question

Why did you find it necessary to "explain" this to her at all?

[darkstar3]

70. Consider this a lesson...

in the unwritten rules of engagement that govern debate between atheists and most believers.

Now, there are many on this thread who attack you for what you said, and I don't wish to do that at all, but I do with to shed a little insight...

Years ago, my entire support office of 7 people went to lunch together. We sat around the table and talked of current events. I can't remember exactly how, but while discussing something about W, the conversation turned rather quickly toward religion. In the group we had 2 atheists and 5 christians, three of which were VERY into their evangelical faiths. (In fact, they all attended the same church.) It was at this point that things got nasty.

I was a very vocal atheist at the time and I already felt a bit angry at my boss (one of the christians at the table) because he had tried to evangelize me at work. I say this because I want you to understand that we all came to this debate with presuppositions, and thanks to the fact that we were diametric opposites things got heated quickly.

At one point in the conversation, my fellow atheist bowed out. He just sat there quietly while the three evangelicals engaged me directly. They were attempting to educate me on how only religious people could be truly moral or understand right from wrong. As I sat there listening to them, I became more and more frustrated, not only at them, but also at my only atheist coworker who had apparently given up. I didn't know it then, but he was wiser than I. He knew when to shut up before he stuck his foot in his mouth.

As I sat there pissed off, my boss said "I just don't see how anyone who doesn't believe in God can have a moral compass." That was when I crossed the line:
"You know, I don't want to offend you, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Religions may get it right once in a while, but they most certainly don't have a monopoly on morality."

In my defense, he crossed the line first, but there was no need for me to use the broken clock phrase and basically piss all over his religion. I knew I had been deliberately mean, I knew I had crossed the line, and those words haunted me for months until my eventual downsizing.

You see what happened, don't you? They're allowed to insult us. That's the way it's always worked. They're in the majority, they have all the power, and they can't even see when/if they insult or demean us.

So when I refer to the unwritten rules of engagement, what I mean is that we, as atheists, must be very careful when we engage with others in debate. And I call them rules of engagement because we must follow them even if our adversaries do not. As they are unwritten, they are also un-numbered, but for the purposes of today's debate we'll call my version of this rule #1.

1 - It is essential to choose your words very carefully, always considering the impact those words will have on your target, even if that consideration requires you to pause or remain silent. Above all, you must never insult your opponent, lest you force them from the debate and lose.

[Bill McBlueState]

109. good stuff

hope to see more of you around DU :toast:

[darkstar3]

110. Thank you.

I try. :)

I like your username. :toast:

[Zynx]

74. Rationality is a very mucky term.

Be careful in throwing around irrationality as an insult for that reason.

[rd_kent]

82. How is a "mucky" term?

ra⋅tion⋅al –adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.

Not sure what you mean by "mucky" as it seems pretty straightforward to me.

[Zynx]

85. In economics you can make any decision sound "rational".

For example, a customer spends $150 more for a product for a feature that doesn't really have any value, but it tickles their fancy for that moment. Well, at that particular moment it was a rational decision because that feature gave them pleasure and they determined that was worth $150 more.

Rationality is actually defined quite loosely and is an overused term. It's also overrated as a concept. One can "rationalize" just about anything.

[rd_kent]

103. Thats great. But we are not talking about economics

and your comment before was not about economics. We are talking about religion and belief in a god.

Belief in a something when there is zero proof of its existence is irrational.

[sam sarrha]

86. not a good idea to pop peoples Balloons, it ends the Conversation,. the only way to really learn

"Skillful Means" is in Meditation, learn to meditate, find a reputable teacher.. ZEN isn't for everybody.. don't think it represents Meditation as a whole, it doesn't, check out the directions at http://www.buddhanet.net to begin that journey. i have some great Audio Books by Jack Kornfield that were great for solo beginners, Pema Chodron, Sharon Salzberg. and it takes a while to start rearranging your brain and get results.

[Odin2005]

91. No. I learned that answer the hard way because my Asperger's-derived bluntness...

...constantly got me into trouble when I gored peoples sacred cows. Took me a while to figure out that people were getting pissed off at me because they didn't want me to disturb their beautiful minds with pesky facts. They are "offended" because they are terrified of dealing cognitive dissonance, facts that contradict the mental models in their heads are perceived as an existential threat and are lashed out at.

[Crunchy Frog]

94. Maybe tactfulness has a certain rationality to it as well.

:shrug:

[PassingFair]

105. I prefer the term "delusional" myself.

Nobody in this day and age likes to be labeled "irrational".

Regardless of how delusional or irrational their
thinking processes are.

:)

[Countdown_3_2_1]

111. You offended her because you were rude.

The words you used came across as condescending--like you did not respect her.

Faith is not something that can be broken down into points of logic.

I suggest you apologize to your mother.
At some point you will need to embrace diversity and allow people to believe differently than you.

[DeSwiss]

119. The words "faith" and "logic".....

...should never appear in the same sentence. The have absolutely NO RELATION to each other.

And if and/or when one "apologizes" for stating reason and truth, then we are accepting delusional behavior as the norm. And in so doing there is then no motivation for that delusional behavior to ever change. While armyowalgreens might have decided to use less provocative words, s/he should never apologize for stating the truth, nor should one obscure it. To do so, is to lie.

- Lies are clearly something that religion is willing to accept and to use as a foundation for their existence and their very being, but not reason and logic.....

on edit: spelling

[Countdown_3_2_1]

120. embrace diversity and allow people to believe differently than you (nt)

[charlie]

121. Maybe he should've included it in the OP

But downthread armyowalgreens notes that his Mom was giving as good as she got. They were having a debate and she was "attacking his stance" as much as he did hers.

So, it's all fair game, or she's as much obliged to apologize and respect diversity as her son is.

[Duke Newcombe]

122. Though we'll never know...

the mention that armyowalgreens mom "gave as good as she got" was conveniently late in the thread, after the heat from other posters. I'm not buying it.

We hear that Christians proselytizing is an affront to atheists. I'd submit that atheists trying to "set the 'irrational' straight" is equally offensive.

[charlie]

124. That's beside the point

It's not whether atheists can be obnoxious, it's whether this atheist was obnoxious. No, we'll never know for sure, but he did say early on they were debating religion and mentioned his mom's demeanor later, which few seemed to have noticed. The assumptions have been that he was gratuitously rude, without consideration that his mom's behavior may have been provocative as well.

[rd_kent]

123. Who is preventing anyone from believing something?

You should point the "embrace diversity and allow people to believe differently than you" finger right back at yourself. When religion becomes accepting of others beliefs......

[Union Yes]

125. Tell her this is the basis of why you consider her beliefs irrational..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=218149&mesg_id=218149

I don't find anything wrong with what you said to your mother. I have a fundie mother. I kinda know what your going through.