Ohhhhhh, now. Aren't religious folk the uppityjudgementalwarmongeringanti-intelectualfanatics, and those not burdened by religious fervor the enlightened ones? Be reasonable, man!
Most of the Atheists on this forum are militant. They have no interest in debate, just in attacking and insulting the Christians on this forum.
The forum is about religion's impact on politics. This is, understandably, of interest to non-religious folk.
Forums take on lives of their own to a degree. Are you suggesting atheists should be restricted from posting in the religion forum?
No--but it does seem that threads on religion are in effect restricted by mocking and rude dismissive comments that derail discussion by offense or by the assumption that rational and reasoned faith cannot exist. Because of that, there seems to be more discussion of Atheism in the Religion forum than matters of faith and religion. Just an observation.
Sometimes ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule. I think you are expecting too much of people's theological justifications though. I suggest examining the actual content of the posts within. Certainly anti-theists tend to be noticed, because anti-theists, like fundamentalists, tend to be the loudest voices. And these boards are not known for being... Hmmm. Rational? Not the right word I think. Timid? Polite? Political and religious ideas invite robust discussion. Unfortunately some of those advocating ideas robustly can get under the nose of others. One should also note that saying that an idea or a concept is ridiculous, or whatever really, is not the same as saying that the person advocating said idea or concept is stupid. One can, and should, criticise ideas on their merits, not on the basis of who says them. Finally, the nature of religious thinking and non-religious thinking invites conflict between the two. For the most part though, I don't see atheists seeking to restrict human rights, political freedoms, and to use an american phrase, the pursuit of happiness, on those of the theists, based on their atheism. Based on their politics? Sure. But based on their lack of religious affectations, no. To badly quote someone: (Voltaire?) I may dislike what you say sir, but I would defend your right to say it until my dying breath.
Stupidity is obvious, and if it's not, perhaps one is looking to others when he or she should scrutinize him or herself more carefully. A fool’s mouth is his ruin, And his lips are the snare of his soul. What do you mean? I suppose you're right. Fools on all sides tend to be the loudest and most consistent. Oh, but that line of distinction is crossed a lot with generalized blanket statements. It depends on if you think having a say in and exerting an influence on the structure of the society in which one lives and raises a family is part of our human rights, political freedom, and pursuit of happiness. The "restrictive" nature of opposing perspectives goes both ways. And yes--free to state positions, but not to drown out or shout down other points of view.
They may seem rude and dismissive, but it just the poster stating facts. If I said the same things about Santa Claus that I do about bonified faiths, would you find it rude and dismissive? Or agree do the nature of Santa Claus? If someone believes that the human race is derived from one man and one woman, in a garden, 6,000 years ago, and actually posts a statement supporting the claim, they can pretty much count on being ridiculed. Just as if I posted a thread concerning my strong unwavering belief in fairies.
Hateful and rude comments only shows the poster producing them to be a crass and poorly raised individual. Faith in a deity is not a sign of a lack of intelligence, rather it is a sign of a sort of intelligence that some others lack. There have been and are brilliant people in all fields who believe in the existence of God. Belief in God can be a rational conclusion. There is evidence--enough to infer the existence of God--but it is a conclusion one must come to on his or her own. There is more evidence for God than there is for life elsewhere in the universe, and yet the hubris of the fanatical atheist feels compelled to ridicule the person of religious faith while at the same time accepting all sorts of un-proved ideas couched in supposed "science" thinking themselves all the while more rational than those who admit their beliefs are in fact BELIEF and not certainty. Hypocrisy is what that is called, my friend.
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of god that cannot be explained through science. Now, what do the atheists believe in that is unproven?
Remember to separate criticising an idea and criticising a person for holding that idea. And of course there are just plain insults. Nonsense. Faith is not an intellectual excercise, it is an emotional one. Argument from authority. An idea is not correct because "brilliant" people subscribe to it. Ideas stand and fall on their merits. No question, absolutely. Similarly, the lack of belief in a deity can also be a rational conclusion. Beliefs and ideas can be rational, and wrong. Rather obviously I disagree. The evidence is contradictory, easier explained without an intervening deity, and most of the time just plain lacking in merit or substance. The conclusion about the evidence must of course be individually weighed and judged by the individual. Most people don't do that. Most people start with their conclusion about the existence of a deity(s) and then cherry pick evidence that supports it. If by "more", you mean, "none", then yes. You are comparing two so far unsubstantiated claims, but only one of them has a grounding in empirical science and reasoning. Guess which one? "Accept unproven ideas"? Really? I think you may be mistaking common representations of science and scientists with the real deal. Science is provisional, and falsifiable. Belief is absolute, and unfalsifiable. Which sounds more rational from that description? I don't know what you think atheists suggest are accepted unproven ideas, but I would wager that most of these ideas are just not being represented to you accurately or with enough care regarding rhetoric.
What do you think dark matter is? Because atheism and cosmology/astrophysics are two different things. One is an opinion about the existence of deities, the other is a branch of science. Wait, you don't think that all scientists are atheists do you? And dark matter isn't "unproven". It's demonstrably a part of the cosmological landscape of our universe. The gravity is there, we can detect its effects and even observe lensing. Dark matter is just a placeholder until we find out what kind of matter it is.
Gravitational lensing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COSMOS_3D_dark_matter_map.jpg Next.
No--generally being crass and rude is indeed evidence of ...being crass and rude individuals. So says the faithless. No--argument from authority suggest that somehow that makes the idea more plausible. I merely stated that believing in God is not necessarily for dummies. I guess we agree there. But, then again--this is from the person who just said faith is emotional, and then contradicted himself in the very next line by conceding that belief can be rational! Perhaps more contemplation on the topic could shore up your stance so that it is more consistent. That is an assumption--unproved. That is not my experience with believers--my experience is that most struggle with their faith and truly do analyze what and why they believe. And why is empirical evidence so important in some instances, but can so easily be dismissed when trying to make varying theories jibe with one another? Talk about cherry picking method! Really? How would one falsify the theory of a common ancestor for all life in evolution? Seems that any new discovery just gets shifted around and a new mode is created to account for any discrepancy with prior theory. Atheists are a varied bunch, just as believers are--it's not fair to make sweeping generalizations about either. The communication of ideas can fail on both sides--but also, the failure to HEAR what is being communicated occurs often due to bigotry, fear, laziness, bitterness....all sorts of things affect the success of discussing ideas.
