Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of reading posts from some believers who feel that atheists should not challenge religious beliefs, or ask for evidence of claims that seem to have nothing to back them up.
Totally hypothetical example--Believer:"Jesus is great, if you had faith (believed) and asked him for help, you would be able to see that"
Atheist:"There is little evidence of a historical Jesus, and none for a divine one. God does not answer prayers."
Believer:"Ok. It's your choice to think that, but my prayers to find a job have been answered."
Atheist:"Why do you think that your prayers have been answered when children of others who prayed for God to protect them have had x and y happen to them? Or others who have sincerely prayed and not found a job? What kind of a God would do that?"
Then third person not even directly involved in the exchange jumps in to defend believers everywhere:"Why is everyone not free to go to church and believe what they want to? Atheists keep trying to force their beliefs on us. Who cares what anyone believes? Live and let live".
You see, the third person here is basically saying ''Don't challenge people's religious beliefs or forcefully state what you believe based on evidence. It is okay for some to promote belief in an imaginary being that holds countless millions mentally captive in various ways [too many examples for this topic], with no supporting evidence whatsoever, you should just accept that and either ignore or agree with them."
Well, I was googling this morning and found this interesting thought, regarding why the promotion of religious beliefs should not simply go unchallenged. (seeing as the way I write seems to get up some people's noses, I won't even reply to this thread)
........
What do you think?:
"One often hears that it is not religious belief itself that is problematic but religious extremism. This sounds appealing until one realizes that the presence of religious believers, including religious moderates, is what often shields religious extremists from criticism. That is, the presence of religious moderates provides a context in which religious extremism doesn't seem nearly as irrational and dangerous as it should. Moderate believers make it far more difficult to question even the most extreme religious beliefs."
http://www.atheistrev.com/2005/03/bible-commands-christians-to-kill.html
A key reason why some atheists challenge religious beliefs
by defender of truth 193 Replies latest members adult
-
defender of truth
-
defender of truth
Also, what do YOU think is a key reason that religious beliefs should be challenged whenever they are being promoted, whether in a forum or real life?
Or do you think it makes no difference to society and the world as a whole for people to preach about Jesus (for example)? -
Phizzy
I think any kind of belief, belief in the sense of trusting that something is true without satisfactory evidence, is indistiguishable from delusion, and therefore the person holding such ideas is not in a safe mental state.
Such beliefs are more pernicious than merely being eccentric for the individual, they actually act as a brake upon progress. Hence we had the Dark Ages and then, thankfully the Enlightenment.
But just think today of the great minds who do not go down many paths of discovery because they believe that God controls everything, god forbids Stem Cell Research or similar, and it is not worth researching Abiogenesis because everything was created.
We lose a lot of great thinkers to the silly ideas that permeate the world of the believer, these potential great thinkers snuff out their line of reasoning before it really gets going, by holding beliefs that belong way back in History.
-
rebel8
^For example, Steve Jobs. Beliefs not based in evidence, religious or not, do harm.
Why is it unethical to respond when someone starts a conversation with you, stating they are engaging in something harmful? That is not "forcing beliefs on others".
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/747-whats-the-harm-kenyan-edition.html
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/1753-consequence.html
-
NAVYTOWN
If a group of seemingly intelligent people started saying that the Moon is made of green cheese, it would be perfectly acceptable for other people to criticize such belief and try to dissuade others from believing it. But when a group of seemingly intelligent folks start telling children they are going to 'go to Hell' when they die if they don't believe in a 'God-figure', somehow it is not OK to openly criticize it and try to point out the fallacy of such notions. Just because a mass delusion falls into the religious category doesn't mean it has to be accepted as factual. Just as believers can broadcast their beliefs, it is equally alright for Atheists/Agnostics to broadcast their opposition to those beliefs. Just because a certain belief system is labelled a 'religion' doesn't place it beyond scrutiny. My personal view is that there is more to Life and the Universe than we currently know, but I don't accept that the religions have all the answers.
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
But just think today of the great minds who do not go down many paths of discovery because they believe that God controls everything
One example is Galileo. For all his brilliance, when he ran into areas where he had no scientific explanation for matters, he was content to chock it up to 'god did it'-we cannot understand it so there's no point in looking. It was in these areas Galileo's growth stagnated, because once he decided something was attributable to god rather than finding a rational, scientific explanation, his mind was no longer seeking answers. Scientists who came after him and were not stymied by the 'god did it' mentality found the answers Galileo refused to search for, and science moved forward.
Religious people are highly uncomfortable when anyone requires evidence to buy into this or that belief. The reason is simple: once a religious person must prove their claims they have nothing, they're dead in the water, and it exposes their belief as a biased opinion based merely on a good feeling, not factual evidence which others can see and verify.
-
prologos
ADCMS : Are you not oversimplifying the "god did it" idea? The best science was done by people that asked instead: " HOW DID GOD DO THIS??"
examples, Kepler, Faraday, Einstein : " --did the eternal have a choice when the laws of Nature were made?" even if its symbolic language it was his mindset, spurring on their research.
All religious beliefs should be challenged not just by atheist scientist but by all.
Albert's response to the question about the immortal soul: "Ach was!" "WWHHAATT?"
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Are you not oversimplifying the "god did it" idea? The best science was done by people that asked instead: " HOW DID GOD DO THIS??"
Establishing irrefutable evidence based on scientific experimentation is still a requirement, regardless of how one postulates the original question.
No, my statement was not an oversimplification.
-
OneEyedJoe
prologos - I don't think he is oversimplifying it. Theists want to believe in god, and if a scientist is working on a problem and they hit a wall it can be somewhat reassuring to ascribe the problem to god. Once they've done that in their mind, they now actually prefer not to solve the problem, because it would make their belief in god a little less tenable, which is something they don't want.
Another great example of this happening is Isaac Newton. He was, by all accounts, one of the most brilliant men to ever live - he essentially invented calculus to win a bet. He was the first to explain the way gravity can hold a planet in orbit, but when he tried to factor in all the seperate gravitational pulls from the several planets, the equations didn't work anymore as the problem became too complex.
The solution to Newton's problem ended up being the comparatively simple perturbation theory, which would've been child's play to someone who invented calculus in a few month's time. Newton almost certainly could've solve the problem, if he'd wanted it a little more.
-
prologos
ADCMS:--I do not remember reading that Galileo ever gave up on further research because he said: "well, god did it" because for him that tenet was a given.
More likely he was old and spent, ready to smell the roses. passing the baton to fresher minds.