I owe a debt of gratitude to a few proselytizing atheists, because I am a happier person as an atheist than I was as a (very conflicted) Christian. But, how does one identify the line? I've upset and offended a few people just by stating my atheist views out loud, sometimes in response to a direct question about my beliefs. ("You have a right to think whatever you want, but you should keep your mouth shut.") This cuts both ways, of course. Back when I was a believer, I ran into "Keep your religion to yourself" and the very popular "stop trying to ram your beliefs down my throat." And this was after saying something as simple as "I'm a Bible-believing Christian." It's hard to know when stating a position turns the corner into treading on someone's toes.

Most people dislike having their beliefs challenged. (They may also dislike having their non-beliefs challenged.) Most people have settled into something they are comfortable with, so this is easy to understand. It's considered impolite in some circles to even bring it up. ("Never discuss religion or politics.") Personally, I really enjoy a spirited exchange of ideas on religion. I never go into it with the aim of changing anyone else's mind. BUT, I must admit, deep down, I would really love it if some argument I made actually DID cause someone to switch over. Really, it would be a hell of an ego boost, because it would mean the other person found me insightful, thoughtful and most of all RIGHT. Maybe they would also find me sexy.

I'm usually pretty good about backing off before things get too heated, but I do so only because I really don't enjoy watching people get upset. I'm almost always sorry the conversation has ended. When that "agree to disagree" line comes up, it's always disappointing to me.

It took me about ten years to complete my journey from passionate believer to contented unbeliever, so I know that no one conversation is ever likely to do the trick. (Unlike my late-teen conversion to evangelical Christianity, which I used to describe as a Road to Damascus experience - meaning it had a lot more to do with emotion than with reason.)w

Emphatically declaring that the earth is the center of the universe and created in 6 days, much less being less than 10-15k years old is hardly a metaphor...among other ridiculous assertions.

Omniscience negates free will, and omnipresence is patently ridiculous...because of He could be in all places at once, He'd be able to stop all the evil at once. Which goes into the weakness (and your avoidance of) omnibenevolence and the problem of evil.

Many schizophrenics...among other mentally disturbed, claim the same thing (need I give the Jim Jones example again?).


Tell that to the many children who died a horrible death suffering in pain because their parents forced their religious beliefs upon them denying them conventional medicine for curable ailements; because according to them, man's medicine is inherently evil (e.g. The Followers of Christ Church, Oregon).

Mockering is a fallacy...

S.D.

The same can be said for any posted religious display just the same.

Do you not see/understand the inherent irony/hypocrisy in this position?

To defend a religious display simultaneoulsye disagreeing with a non-religious display on public grounds, both having the same 1st Amendment rights of that display, is inherently just that...ironic/hypocritical.

S.D.

Notwithstanding this fact, there is more empirical evidence supporting the former (making it a substantiated opinion) than the latter (an UNsubstantaited opinion)!

S.D.

I think the sign should have stayed in place.

I would have placed a sign next to it stating my beliefs:

"Skepticism = Insecurity About One's Own Intelligence Level. Therefore, skeptics have to make everyone else look dumb in a lame attempt to appear smarter than they actually are."

:D

Shiny happy holiday thoughts, no? ;)

I am guessing you believed this at one point and are angry bout being duped.


ALEX........WHERE ARE YOU???????


And many people who are NOT "crazy" have claimed so as well. And.....?


Yes, but bad people don't make all people bad.


Really? Is that truth? Whose truth?

I'm not sure I defend public religious displays either.

One can't prove a negative, only fail to prove a positive. So I disagree that there is evidence for the nonexistance of god. One can think of god as unnecessary, possibly, but non-existance cannot actually be proven.

People believe things. Some believe in god, of various forms, and some believe in a lack of god. Both are opinions.

And the proof of free will is?

(I think there are those in the scientific community that dispute that - though I'm not one of them - or even a member of the scientific community)

Sorry you think my Lapland remark mocking, but I'm an existentialist with heavy phenomenological leanings - thus there is no truth other than what we create. For my personal experience that puts God and Lapland in the same category, though I've chosen to believe on and not the other, how could I fault someoen with thinking differently.

As to the horrors of religion on the world, I would broaden those to belong to people who claim to know truth - then you could lump the secular dogmatists (i.e. Nazis, Communists, etc.) in that category as well.