Damn dude, you specifically mentioned “encroaching on the freedoms of others”....someones “freedom” to kill you is encroaching on your freedom to live isn’t it? Don’t be so ready to concede a point to some dummy because he cannot understand a simple phrase.
Anyway, I think I disagree with you about fundamentalism being the problem rather than theism. According to you encroaching on freedoms is the definitive trait to make the conviction of belief “fundamentalism”, am I reading you right? And that absent that fundamentalism theism is not a problem?

Anyway, I think I disagree with you about fundamentalism being the problem rather than theism. According to you encroaching on freedoms is the definitive trait to make the conviction of belief “fundamentalism”, am I reading you right? And that absent that fundamentalism theism is not a problem? — DingoJones

Fundamentalism usually implies that there are right and wrong beliefs to have and further that others should be coerced into holding the same beliefs as the fundamentalist. That’s what I think.

Ok, and if theism isnt doing that then you dont think its a problem? Also, for clarity could you elaborate on how you are using the term “coerced”?

Ok, and if theism isnt doing that then you dont think its a problem? Also, for clarity could you elaborate on how you are using the term “coerced”? — DingoJones

Theism in and of itself is innocuous. Evangelism on metaphysical issues is what I have in mind as coercion. Also, in the Theistic middle eastern countries there is threat of violence. This clearly is much worse.

I see. Perhaps we dont disagree after all. What about the religious indoctrination of children? Would you see that as fundamentalism?

What about the religious indoctrination of children? Would you see that as fundamentalism? — DingoJones

I think giving a child exposure to many different religions is not a problem. Indoctrination in a particular religion is a problem. It promotes intolerance.

The belief in God is trancendental, it is not even in the field of empiricism or logical systems. God is beyond space and time and asking for a prove of God is asking the wrong question. Beliefs are more like feelings than reason.In sufism, we say that when a belief reaches it's perfection, it turns into love.

What is the child being told about all these religions? That they are mythology, or that they are true?

The problems with atheist is that they never have met a real mystic. By mystic l mean someone who has devoted his whole life searching for God and gone through the ascetism and all hardships of life. I think there is a whole different kind of experience waiting for us if we manage to completely disconnect from the world and have no other desire but to know God. I have met countless people like that and they have always said the same thing ; reason can never lead you to know God .

Right, we are good not talking. None of what you just said has any substance and you dont even know it.

What is the child being told about all these religions? That they are mythology, or that they are true? — DingoJones

As long as the child is told that concerning these matters it is completely up to them to believe or disbelieve whatever they want, and that they should give the same consideration to others, then it is not a problem.

I don't think you will ever understand what l said unless you see for yourself.

The problems with atheist is that they never have met a real mystic. By mystic l mean someone who has devoted his whole life searching for God and gone through the ascetism and all hardships of life. I think there is a whole different kind of experience waiting for us if we manage to completely disconnect from the world and have no other desire but to know God. I have met countless people like that and they have always said the same thing ; reason can never lead you to know God . — Wittgenstein

That’s fine. But you can’t preach to someone who has no interest, right?

Yes, absolutely. I hope that l don't sound like l am preaching.

Yes, absolutely. I hope that l don't sound like l am preaching — Wittgenstein

No, you don’t sound like you’re preaching. At least not to me. But atheists often see any defense as a form of preaching. They tend not to see that distinction.

I was on their side once and l can understand their sentiments but most people in the world and by most l mean 98 percent people who believe in God do so for having a meaning in life and not for logical reasons.When l went through existential crisis , after contemplating how l will disappear from the world one day, l couldn't help but turn back to God for going through that time and forgetting it. Most atheist would rather embrace the bitter reality but it fails to work for many people.

Of course that’s a reason many theists have given. There are also theists who experience things that atheists don’t seem to or atheists would dismiss these experiences as mistaking God for something going on in the brain as a kind of delusion, hallucination, or something. Just be aware that defending your beliefs sounds like preaching to atheists even when it’s not.

Shouldnt they be encouraged to not to believe in things that aren’t true? That seems like something we teach children in other areas to me, like when they learn biology we don’t present creationism as one of a bunch of explanations they can choose to believe or not believe right? (The obvious religion parallel aside, i didnt mean to make that a confusing analogy its just the first thing that came to mind. The structure is the same.)
I mean, would you say the same thing about teaching a kid that they get to choose for themselves whether Harry Potter magic is real or not? Religion is just older, more ingrained and we are used to it, but its no less baseless than Harry Potter magic. Not one, tiny bit.

Shouldnt they be encouraged to not to believe in things that aren’t true? That seems like something we teach children in other areas to me, like when they learn biology we don’t present creationism as one of a bunch of explanations they can choose to believe or not believe right? (The obvious religion parallel aside, i didnt mean to make that a confusing analogy its just the first thing that came to mind. The structure is the same.)
I mean, would you say the same thing about teaching a kid that they get to choose for themselves whether Harry Potter magic is real or not? Religion is just older, more ingrained and we are used to it, but its no less baseless than Harry Potter magic. Not one, tiny bit. — DingoJones

You could tell a kid that there is a dimension that Harry Potter magic exists but not our dimension. Then you could make it plain that it is completely up to the kid whether to believe this or not. It would have no bearing on the practical matters of life. Kind of like the multiverse.

Ya see I disagree. Why would we want to teach a child its ok to believe in these alternate dimensions? Its no different than telling them creationism is up to them to decide if its true or not. Its a problem to teach children things that aren’t true and that the figments of imagination and flights of fancy are ok to believe or not believe as is their preference.

There was a recent philosopher who vouched for the validity of religious experience. His reasoning was along simple lines. We cannot even comprehend the mind of a genius and it is quite difficult to figure out what goes in their brain but nevertheless, their ideas have the power to transform the society. Similarly in the past, people believe that there were prophets who had religious experience on a whole different level, and their ideas or revelations transformed the society and such powerful ideas cannot come from delusions since delusions always lack a concrete matter or a firm direction.
The philosopher also managed to explain the difference in religious experience. It was due to two main reasons.
Firstly, most religious experience cannot be expressed precisely or lose their meaning once expressed. Therefore descriptions of religious experience fails to convey the essence of it. Secondly, the religious experience can be the same but the interpretation can be different due to personality,belief etc of the person going through the experience but there is a general theme behind all of the experience.

A lot of scientists believe in the multiverse. A lot of scientists also believe in intelligent design. A lot of scientists believe in intelligent design through evolution. These are models for understanding the unknown. There are experiences that people can have whose causes are unknown. What they choose to believe about first causes isn’t something an atheist should care about, nor can the atheist explain first causes without invoking faith of their own.

Yes, and those things that are unknown should be taught as something that are unknown. It is problematic to say the least to teach children, or anyone, that in the absence of an answer it is ok to make one up, or pick one someone else made up.

You agree so much with dummies.

:zip:

The character though... mean spirited. Freedom must be moderated. It is when two people's freedom collide that encroachment becomes necessary. The real point is that talking in terms of unfettered, uninterrupted freedom is both fundamental - by the standards set heretofore - and impossible(untenable).

Indeed. Atheism was the topic. I was setting out my own agnostic version.

Yes, and those things that are unknown should be taught as something that are unknown. It is problematic to say the least to teach children, or anyone, that in the absence of an answer it is ok to make one up, or pick one someone else made up. — DingoJones

When it comes to the mystery of existence itself whatever people believe will be a matter of faith, since there can be no empirical evidence. I am inclined to remain non-committal, and am content with having no belief either way, but not everyone is comfortable with that. So, I would say that if someone finds comfort in believing in God or whatever, it is fine and harmless provided they refrain from attempting to inflict those beliefs on others.

The other point is that I think arguments about theism vs atheism are pointless, just because there can be no evidence. This means there can be no evidence-based rational argument for either atheism or theism that will convince anyone who is free from bias.

You don't need to defend NOT believing in something.

Why not just ignore the debate? Then there's no attack, no need to defend. Or, really, it's the perfect defense. — Coben

I would if I grew up in a completely secular household, not isolated in a religious community, and not have been indoctrinated with their beliefs. I'm surrounded by religion. I can't ignore it.

I would if I grew up in a completely secular household, not isolated in a religious community, and not have been indoctrinated with their beliefs. I'm surrounded by religion. I can't ignore it. — Purple Pond

Might it still, despite this, not be better to avoid the debate?

You could just say it's not a conversatoin your interested in. Then ask them about their jobs or families or hobbies. — Coben

That seems like the most logical thing to do. I mean, defenders of a faith are usually well practiced, and will go to any lengths to argue their beliefs, even in a dishonest way. They're like trained soldiers.