Do belief systems deserve respect?

[iceaura]

by "but others should believe (or disbelieve) anyways," do you mean to suggest that the respective theist or atheist, by virtue of their argument, is trying to persuade or convince others to believe or disbelieve?

if so, then i suppose there have been theists who've tried to "convert," so to speak--i cannot think of any off the top of my head--but i will acknowledge that there are/have been some.

as to atheists: would you not consider the assertions, made by the atheist, that the theist (whom they are addressing) is insane, idiotic, or deluded a form of persuasion? if so, i can name many individuals.

Apparently I was unclear, although I can't see how.

What would counter my assertion, would be the names of some atheists on this forum who are arguing that people should disbelieve in any gods, without evidence or reason supporting claims of their nonexistence.

I think there are none. I think that is a strawman position asserted by theists to avoid engagement with the actual arguments involved.

 

[Doreen]

Apparently I was unclear, although I can't see how.

What would counter my assertion, would be the names of some atheists on this forum who are arguing that people should disbelieve in any gods, without evidence or reason supporting claims of their nonexistence.

I think there are none. I think that is a strawman position asserted by theists to avoid engagement with the actual arguments involved.

Would you consider calling all theists insane to have that implicit argument in it?

Because to me this means that the atheists in question are saying they KNOW that the theists must be incorrectly interpreting any experiences that led them to believe in God.

There are two atheists here who have said all theists are insane. One a mod who I think is peachy, but hey......

 

[parmalee]

Would you consider calling all theists insane to have that implicit argument in it?

Because to me this means that the atheists in question are saying they KNOW that the theists must be incorrectly interpreting any experiences that led them to believe in God.

There are two atheists here who have said all theists are insane. One a mod who I think is peachy, but hey......

well, to be a bit more comprehensive: insane, deluded, and/or idiotic.

we can be generous here, and assume that those who made the statements were not intending them as ad homs--for then they would be quite unreasonable, would they not?-- but rather, intended something like: "well, if you insist on believing such, then you are an insane, deluded, idiot; but if you believe as i do..."

 

[Doreen]

well, to be a bit more comprehensive: insane, deluded, and/or idiotic.

we can be generous here, and assume that those who made the statements were not intending them as ad homs--for then they would be quite unreasonable, would they not?-- but rather, intended something like: "well, if you insist on believing such, then you are an insane, deluded, idiot; but if you believe as i do..."

I am quite sure the latter would be the official position whatever the 'secondary' gains.

 

[iceaura]

Would you consider calling all theists insane to have that implicit argument in it?

No. Why would it?

Because to me this means that the atheists in question are saying they KNOW that the theists must be incorrectly interpreting any experiences that led them to believe in God.

And how do they "know" that? By reason and evidence as seems sufficient to them, as far as I see here.

 

[Doreen]

No. Why would it?

And how do they "know" that? By reason and evidence as seems sufficient to them, as far as I see here.

So you know that they could not possibly be communicated with by a deity.

 

[Doreen]

No. Why would it?

Because it assumes they cannot be correct abuot their experiences.

And how do they "know" that?

They can't. They cannot know. They cannot know what those experiences are. They cannot know if in fact deity is communicating with these people.

It may be quite rational NOT to accept the interpretations of the theists in question. But to assume they are insane is just that, an assumption.

By reason and evidence as seems sufficient to them, as far as I see here.

So they have evidence that these people are not in communication with God? What is that evidence?

And an alternative hypothesis, even one that seems vastly more likely to them, does not mean they KNOW the theists are insane.

If you think they can know, then you are saying there is no God OR you know what is possible if there is one.

The former position fits Parmalee's use of the quote that started this. The latter is a claim to theological knowledge by an atheist no less.

 

[parmalee]

"Because to me this means that the atheists in question are saying they KNOW that the theists must be incorrectly interpreting any experiences that led them to believe in God."
And how do they "know" that? By reason and evidence as seems sufficient to them, as far as I see here.

just for sake of clarity, what exactly is the evidence for the non-existence of a deity? and how are you defining a deity? are you going by the definitions provided by the 17th century, heh, "anthropologists" to whom you previously alluded (as you certainly have not evinced familiarity with any anthropological work post-17th century)?

 

[parmalee]

furthermore, given the use of the term "insane": are we just to assume hyperbole? or do they really intend insane, as in the legal definition (being as the term has no relevance in psychology or psychiatry for the past half-century or so) --that would indeed be a curious accusation, reflective of ignorance or perhaps...insanity?

 

[parmalee]

that's the ticket: just ignore it, and it will go away--eh, ice?