God

[alanrotoi]

I'm fine with your opinion, can you live with mine?

Not really.

That's why I feel sorry. You are an atheist taliban. You put words in my mouth and thinkings in my mind and then you want to change my way of thinking. You want an army marching with only one thinking: your truth.

[Duplode]

Okay. I don't think you should consider it only as a negative thing if someone tries to 'force' an opinion on someone else through logic and good arguments. It means he cares, and it means he is trying to make the world more educated - even if he's wrong or not succeeding.

That's why I feel sorry. You are an atheist taliban. You put words in my mouth and thinkings in my mind and then you want to change my way of thinking. You want an army marching with only one thinking: your truth.

By God, you are really talking past each other... the implied disagreement here seems to be about whether religion is a topic of discussion like any other, or whether religious beliefs should necessarily fall into the shroud of privacy (compare: X criticizes Y's opinions about architecture v. X criticizes Y's sexual orientation).

[Chulk]

Okay - but then you must also be agnostic about all other unfalsifiable claims like (see Russell's teapot, Loch Ness Monster, the tooth fairy etc.).

I am

Luckily, nobody's being burned anymore, but your opinion bothers me in the same way as someone who would stand by at a witch burning and say: "I have no opinion about whether witches exist and whether she really is a witch, and I don't care."

If I have no way of knowing something to be true or to be false, who am I to give opinions about it?
If you said something in Danish is spelled in a given way and I don't know the word or the language, why would I argue about it?
So, I don't know if God exists or not. That does not mean I watch with my arms crossed at someone who is being killed by theist (or atheist) motives. I think murder is wrong and I will try to stop it. But I won't do it by saying "that God you're killing in the name of does not exist and you're wrong" or "that God you're killing that guy for believing in actually exist and you're wrong". I would just say "what you are doing is wrong as it is illegal".

BTW, I don't think God exist, I consider myself an atheist. But I'm trying to put myself in Alan's (or any other agnostic for that matter) mind and explain, as Alan probably can't because his English is not good enough

[BonzaiJoe]

I'm fine with your opinion, can you live with mine?

Not really.

That's why I feel sorry. You are an atheist taliban. You put words in my mouth and thinkings in my mind and then you want to change my way of thinking. You want an army marching with only one thinking: your truth.

Well, I'm reason Taliban. Atheism is just a symptom of that. If you wanted me not to put words in your mouth, you could have explained your opinion just a little bit.

[BonzaiJoe]

Okay - but then you must also be agnostic about all other unfalsifiable claims like (see Russell's teapot, Loch Ness Monster, the tooth fairy etc.).

I am

Luckily, nobody's being burned anymore, but your opinion bothers me in the same way as someone who would stand by at a witch burning and say: "I have no opinion about whether witches exist and whether she really is a witch, and I don't care."

If I have no way of knowing something to be true or to be false, who am I to give opinions about it?
If you said something in Danish is spelled in a given way and I don't know the word or the language, why would I argue about it?
So, I don't know if God exists or not. That does not mean I watch with my arms crossed at someone who is being killed by theist (or atheist) motives. I think murder is wrong and I will try to stop it. But I won't do it by saying "that God you're killing in the name of does not exist and you're wrong" or "that God you're killing that guy for believing in actually exist and you're wrong". I would just say "what you are doing is wrong as it is illegal".

Okay, that's fair enough. I really think it's a better idea to expose the superstitions that the violence is based on, though, to avoid further nonsense.
Of course no one likes to kill people (or to live in celibacy or oppress gay people or spend their lives meddling with education systems), but they do it because they think it's necessary because their religion/superstition demands it. So they're not going to agree with you that it's wrong. From their perspective, it's right.
No one should think like that, and enlightenment is the only way to stop it. And before the complaints: enlightenment is not thought police. It's simply reason and evidence, for people themselves to understand and apply.

[BonzaiJoe]

If you said something in Danish is spelled in a given way and I don't know the word or the language, why would I argue about it?

You wouldn't argue about it because you realize that this is something I know about. Because you know that I've grown up in Denmark, speaking Danish.
People making religious claims have no way of knowing what happened before our universe began. They claim to have authority and to know better than you, but they have nothing to base their claims on.
Scientists talking about cosmology should be respected because they have actually studied what's been happening in the universe. They have looked at the evidence and made conclusions, and all their observations and calculations are available for anyone to repeat their examinations and see for themselves.

[Chulk]

From their perspective, it's right.

There's no such thing as perspective when law is involved

[alanrotoi]

Well, I'm reason Taliban. Atheism is just a symptom of that. If you wanted me not to put words in your mouth, you could have explained your opinion just a little bit.

You asked: "what do you believe?"

My answer:

"I believe in reason and science."

Isn't that enough to understand? Anyway I noted since your first post here you wanted a "discussion" or an excuse to show your truth. I avoided it and you got mad. I will not feed anyone's vanity.

If you can't accept my opinion about "God" keep your madness with you.

[BonzaiJoe]

From their perspective, it's right.

There's no such thing as perspective when law is involved

What if there are two laws?

[Chulk]

From their perspective, it's right.

There's no such thing as perspective when law is involved

What if there are two laws?

Law hierarchy exist so that doesn't happen... I can't think of any case, can you provide one so we have something to brainstorm around?

[BonzaiJoe]

I mean religious law vs political law. What if God says I have to do one thing and the state says I have to do another thing? To most really religious people, God's will is of course more important.

[Chulk]

I mean religious law vs political law.

Religions themselves say that political law must be respected. That's why they no longer go on Crusades any more (at least not officially). It's against their belief to do something political law forbids.

[Duplode]

I mean religious law vs political law.

Religions themselves say that political law must be respected. That's why they no longer go on Crusades any more (at least not officially). It's against their belief to do something political law forbids.

Someone has to write the laws though. And sometimes that is done out of religious principles.

[alanrotoi]

Sometimes you can find antitheist people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

[Chulk]

Someone has to write the laws though. And sometimes that is done out of religious principles.

Sure thing. But those laws also have some logic basement. I don't think there will ever be a law against sloth, for example.