The atheist bus

[rdhopeca]

Atheism does not have a theology per se, of course, as it rests on denial, on a negative, and agnosticism rests on a belief in an inability to know (they set empirical proof as the criterion for belief and deny/ignore other aspects of human experience), and the philosophies are therefore necessarily based on the experience of the individual.

I have to disagree with this. Atheism is not based on a denial, any more than Christianity is based on a fantasy. You may choose to present it as such based on semantics, but I choose to believe that the world is as science presents it, and no proof has been shown me to say that there is an otherwordly presence. You can wrap it up as a negative and a denial if you like. But then from my point of view that would allow me to say that all religions are based on delusion and fantasy derived from an inability to accept the world for what it is.

I'm speaking of a philosophical denial, not a scientific one. It denies the mass of human experience, the claims of miracles, visions, after-death experiences reported throughout history, dogmatically asserts them to be universally delusion and usually assumes materialism as its base philosophy. It doesn't look like you are an exception. ("All there is is what I see"; "I'll believe it when I see it")
Thus, the reliance on science to reveal truth. And it does reveal truths - about the material world. But it does nothing to explain anything about the human being other than the body - the material functions and is helpless before large scale and repeated reports of the phenomena that I described.

I never asserted that you were delusional. I merely used that to illustrate a point, that if you are going to attach dogmatic claims to my beliefs, I am then free to do the same to yours, and this would be an example. However, I don't believe that people are universally delusional. I have too much respect for other people's beliefs to say so. And I certainly don't think that about my Catholic wife.

But statements that "all beliefs are on an equal footing" display a lack of knowledge of the depths of the faiths that have survived for millenia - if they were mere artificial constructs they should have 'bought the farm' a long time ago.

Many artificial constructs have bought the farm down through the milennia. Longevity is not a claim for truth. For how many centuries was the world flat? A lot more than when it was round, that's for sure. Just because you've managed to build and maintain your belief system over time is not proof of its truths. It's just proof that your message was sufficient enough to appeal to the masses. And again, you are attacking my "lack of knowledge"...knowledge which is I feel is irrelevant to the basis for my beliefs.

But these religions have NOT 'bought the farm'. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are alive and kicking. The longevity does make for a stronger case - the fact that millions of people over thousands of years accept as true the idea of a creator and superior deity makes the atheist the historical exception - and the atheist has never dominated a civilization.

Again, if I apply your argument (on lack of knowledge) to creationism/Intelligent Design I'd have Lord Mhoram and Malik howling
Also, you seem to speak of "the masses" as something that you are separate and superior to. It also doesn't explain the enormous number of intelligent people throughout history who did accept faith - Isaac Newton, Samuel Johnson and George Washington, to name just a few (English speakers). Its message had to be sufficient to appeal to them, too. Or are they just part of "the masses"?
It does mean that over time the truths claimed that are testable are found to be true. Time certainly does play a role, just as it plays a role in weeding out bad literature, leaving us a significantly smaller body of print that we call "classics"; that generation after generation find truth and value in.

I only refer to the masses in terms of "strength in numbers", not for any derogatory means or an assertion of superiority. If you have enough people believing in something, even if its the presence of the fire God Ra, and your followers actively send missionaries out into the world to spread your message, and you do your damndest to make sure that no people are left other than those who believe what you believe, then you stand a good chance of your faith surviving. It's called a "critical mass", where enough people believe to make it survive on its own. That doesn't mean it's the One Truth. And many other belief systems have passed on through history, either through extinction or subjugation.

Which, of course, might explain why atheism has never dominated a civilization...it's never attempted to in the ways that other religious belief systems have.

I also don't equate faith with intelligence, so I don't hold it against George Washington or any other of the people you have named. There are plenty of smart people who are religious....and plenty of stupid people...and plenty of adulterers...and plenty of axe murderers...and plenty of genocidal rulers who have killed thousands in the name of their faith. Faith is found in each individual. Of course, there are plenty of smart, and stupid, and adulterous, and axe murdering atheists as well. I'm sure there are atheist genocidal rulers, but I can't think of one right now.

[rusmeister]

I find this to be true as well. I grew up Mormon, and by and large, Mormons are very friendly people. After I left the church, almost all Mormons I knew or met were fine with it when I told them I was no longer Mormon. But there were exceptions, and every time I found myself getting a lecture (or even yelled at), it was by someone who had converted. And sure, there's the whole missionary thing, but they're still polite about it. But when I see someone being very aggressive and announcing their Mormon faith on public forums, I find they've also converted. It's strange.

I do think being a convert plays a role in attitude. The person born in a faith is more relaxed, because they take everything for granted. The convert knows how he could see things differently, because he DID see them differently. As a result, he is more capable of understanding people of the background from which he came. The person born in the faith doesn't have this advantage. It is something of a source of wonderment for him how people could not see these things. The faith is like breathing. For the convert, I think there is a sharper awareness of the possibility of falling away from the faith.

That said, I think I could identify this as a fourth dodge (to add to the other three). if you can't attack the ideas, attack the person. Portray them as a fanatic, and we can stop considering the ideas.

This is in no way intended as a "dodge". It was intended as a compliment and an observation, at least from my vantage point. Certainly not an attack on anyone. But if you choose to take it as such, I can only surmise that you are actively looking for reasons to say that people are only dodging.

No no no!
Sorry - the dodge comment was not aimed at any one person - it was a general comment. Also, I understood your own comment as a compliment and thanked you.
This is part of the general problem I think we all have in occasionally misunderstanding others on electronic forums. Naked words + lack of context.

[rusmeister]

I have to disagree with this. Atheism is not based on a denial, any more than Christianity is based on a fantasy. You may choose to present it as such based on semantics, but I choose to believe that the world is as science presents it, and no proof has been shown me to say that there is an otherwordly presence. You can wrap it up as a negative and a denial if you like. But then from my point of view that would allow me to say that all religions are based on delusion and fantasy derived from an inability to accept the world for what it is.

I'm speaking of a philosophical denial, not a scientific one. It denies the mass of human experience, the claims of miracles, visions, after-death experiences reported throughout history, dogmatically asserts them to be universally delusion and usually assumes materialism as its base philosophy. It doesn't look like you are an exception. ("All there is is what I see"; "I'll believe it when I see it")
Thus, the reliance on science to reveal truth. And it does reveal truths - about the material world. But it does nothing to explain anything about the human being other than the body - the material functions and is helpless before large scale and repeated reports of the phenomena that I described.

I never asserted that you were delusional. I merely used that to illustrate a point, that if you are going to attach dogmatic claims to my beliefs, I am then free to do the same to yours, and this would be an example. However, I don't believe that people are universally delusional. I have too much respect for other people's beliefs to say so. And I certainly don't think that about my Catholic wife.

Perhaps if I say "imaginary" rather than "delusional", that would better describe your stand?

Also, what does "respect for others' beliefs" mean? Would you respect my belief that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the world is on the back of a turtle, or that the world was actually created in 6 days 6,000 years ago? What does "respect" mean, then?

Many artificial constructs have bought the farm down through the milennia. Longevity is not a claim for truth. For how many centuries was the world flat? A lot more than when it was round, that's for sure. Just because you've managed to build and maintain your belief system over time is not proof of its truths. It's just proof that your message was sufficient enough to appeal to the masses. And again, you are attacking my "lack of knowledge"...knowledge which is I feel is irrelevant to the basis for my beliefs.

But these religions have NOT 'bought the farm'. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are alive and kicking. The longevity does make for a stronger case - the fact that millions of people over thousands of years accept as true the idea of a creator and superior deity makes the atheist the historical exception - and the atheist has never dominated a civilization.

Again, if I apply your argument (on lack of knowledge) to creationism/Intelligent Design I'd have Lord Mhoram and Malik howling
Also, you seem to speak of "the masses" as something that you are separate and superior to. It also doesn't explain the enormous number of intelligent people throughout history who did accept faith - Isaac Newton, Samuel Johnson and George Washington, to name just a few (English speakers). Its message had to be sufficient to appeal to them, too. Or are they just part of "the masses"?
It does mean that over time the truths claimed that are testable are found to be true. Time certainly does play a role, just as it plays a role in weeding out bad literature, leaving us a significantly smaller body of print that we call "classics"; that generation after generation find truth and value in.

I only refer to the masses in terms of "strength in numbers", not for any derogatory means or an assertion of superiority. If you have enough people believing in something, even if its the presence of the fire God Ra, and your followers actively send missionaries out into the world to spread your message, and you do your damndest to make sure that no people are left other than those who believe what you believe, then you stand a good chance of your faith surviving. It's called a "critical mass", where enough people believe to make it survive on its own. That doesn't mean it's the One Truth. And many other belief systems have passed on through history, either through extinction or subjugation.

Which, of course, might explain why atheism has never dominated a civilization...it's never attempted to in the ways that other religious belief systems have.

I also don't equate faith with intelligence, so I don't hold it against George Washington or any other of the people you have named. There are plenty of smart people who are religious....and plenty of stupid people...and plenty of adulterers...and plenty of axe murderers...and plenty of genocidal rulers who have killed thousands in the name of their faith. Faith is found in each individual. Of course, there are plenty of smart, and stupid, and adulterous, and axe murdering atheists as well. I'm sure there are atheist genocidal rulers, but I can't think of one right now.

On the masses: understood. But then the question comes in of what is more probable - that billions of people throughout history have been wrong (on an issue not related to empirical truth), or that a minority only in our time is right. Certainly, belief is normal and the absence of belief is abnormal for humans. If all other things are equal, then probability favors the masses. So it is not a case of "might makes right" as you seem to see it) but of the "classic" test - does it survive the test of time? Does generation after generation on a large scale find this to be true? None of it is a guarantee of truth, but it certainly makes the minority view less probable.

[rdhopeca]

Perhaps if I say "imaginary" rather than "delusional", that would better describe your stand?

Actually, no. To you, I am sure it is very real. To me it is not. Again, each to their own truth.

Also, what does "respect for others' beliefs" mean? Would you respect my belief that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the world is on the back of a turtle, or that the world was actually created in 6 days 6,000 years ago? What does "respect" mean, then?

Respect for others' beliefs means that I generally say nothing about my own in the presence of others, nor do I generally debate them or question them openly. In fact, this is about the only time I've ever held any kind of debate on this issue. My conversations with my wife, in total, comprise of about an hour's worth of discussion, during which I agreed to accompany her to church, out of respect and a desire to support her, while maintaining my intention to not participate in any way other than standing or sitting as appropriate. Of my own beliefs I say very little publicly to anyone, and respect others' traditions and desires. I don't send birthday gifts to my Muslim niece and nephew, for example, because it's against their beliefs. And I would certainly never classify my sister's beliefs as "imaginary" or "delusional". Rather, they are simply different than mine. And that's ok.

[Cybrweez]

Which, of course, might explain why atheism has never dominated a civilization...it's never attempted to in the ways that other religious belief systems have.

An interesting idea. Never thought about it. Altho I'd have to say to this and rus's claim, wouldn't communism fit the bill? Its recent, doesn't have quite the historical longevity, but is an atheistic dominated civ.

I'm sure there are atheist genocidal rulers, but I can't think of one right now.

Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler. So yea, there's one commonality amongst atheists and theists thruout history, they're all human.

[Zarathustra]

Hitler wasn't an atheist.

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".

"For their interests [the Church's] cannot fail to coincide with ours [the National Socialists] alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life".


Both of these quotes are from Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, Oxford University Press, 1942, cited in an Internet article by Doug Krueger.

"I often feel that we will have to undergo all the trials the devil and hell can devise before we achieve Final Victory....I may be no pious churchgoer, but deep within me I am nevertheless a devout man. That is to say, I believe that he who fights valiantly obeying the laws which a god has established and who never capitulates but instead gathers his forces time after time and always pushes forward—such a man will not be abandoned by the Lawgiver. Rather he will ultimately receive the blessing of Providence. And that blessing has been imparted to all great spirits in history." (Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich : Memoirs. Bonanza Books ; Distributed by Crown Publishers, 1982, cited in an Internet article by Kevin Davids).

homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

And from another site:

It is an often heard refrain among less well informed Christians that Hitler and Stalin (those slightly more knowledgeable sometimes add Pol Pot and Mao Zedong) were atheists and that their atheism led them to commit atrocities resulting in the deaths of millions of people. These claims are demonstrably false.

* Hitler was never an atheist. The available evidence points to the fact that he remained a theist throughout his whole life.

* It is true that Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot, were all atheists. But the primary influences that led to their atrocities were not atheism per se but their dogmatic Marxism and communist ideas.

We see that in none of these cases could atheism be made to "take the blame" for the atrocities committed by these men.

And this site has a lot more quotes from Hitler that make it impossible for Hitler to have been an atheist: www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

[Loredoctor]

I must admit I am always surprised when people claim that Hitler was an atheist.

[Zarathustra]

I just wanted to add that I wasn't making a statement about the level of anyone's education, even though the quotes I used made statements about "less well informed Christians." Those were just the first quotes I grabbed after Googling.

Rdhopeca, I am quite impressed with your posts. You have a way of stating your argument that comes off very respectful and thoughtful. I could take some lessons from you. Great job.

[rdhopeca]

Rdhopeca, I am quite impressed with your posts. You have a way of stating your argument that comes off very respectful and thoughtful. I could take some lessons from you. Great job.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

In spite of what might appear to be my "lack of knowledge" in the arena, I've given this particular issue a lot of thought over the years. And being surrounded by Catholics and Muslims and Protestants and a mother who always regretted not going to church when my sister and I were teens and a Catholic father who was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for marrying my mother in a Protestant church, I have learned to express my particular opinions on this subject in a very non-inflammatory, non-confrontational way. Most of the time, anyway

[rusmeister]

Perhaps if I say "imaginary" rather than "delusional", that would better describe your stand?

Actually, no. To you, I am sure it is very real. To me it is not. Again, each to their own truth.

The question this deliberately evades is "Who's right?" It's fine for avoiding confrontation. It is worse than useless for establishing truth. It says "There is no truth" and this is a deliberate choice of ignorance regarding a world that we see before us that was definitely formed somehow.

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

CS Lewis

Also, what does "respect for others' beliefs" mean? Would you respect my belief that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the world is on the back of a turtle, or that the world was actually created in 6 days 6,000 years ago? What does "respect" mean, then?

Respect for others' beliefs means that I generally say nothing about my own in the presence of others, nor do I generally debate them or question them openly. In fact, this is about the only time I've ever held any kind of debate on this issue. My conversations with my wife, in total, comprise of about an hour's worth of discussion, during which I agreed to accompany her to church, out of respect and a desire to support her, while maintaining my intention to not participate in any way other than standing or sitting as appropriate. Of my own beliefs I say very little publicly to anyone, and respect others' traditions and desires. I don't send birthday gifts to my Muslim niece and nephew, for example, because it's against their beliefs. And I would certainly never classify my sister's beliefs as "imaginary" or "delusional". Rather, they are simply different than mine. And that's ok.

That is silence, not respect. Silence can mask contempt as well as admiration. Again, are their beliefs right? Are yours? How about flat-earthers (as well as Muslims and Catholics)? Do you hold their beliefs as worthy of accepting? Or your own? If not, you can hardly speak of respect.

Again, it's an evasion of the question, "Who is right?"

I'd say your wife is far more right than you are and you are well-advised to accept her faith and make a choice to believe in spite of material evidence. It's called "faith". (Never mind the benefits of family unity )

[rdhopeca]

Perhaps if I say "imaginary" rather than "delusional", that would better describe your stand?

Actually, no. To you, I am sure it is very real. To me it is not. Again, each to their own truth.

The question this deliberately evades is "Who's right?" It's fine for avoiding confrontation. It is worse than useless for establishing truth. It says "There is no truth" and this is a deliberate choice of ignorance regarding a world that we see before us that was definitely formed somehow.

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

CS Lewis

Also, what does "respect for others' beliefs" mean? Would you respect my belief that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the world is on the back of a turtle, or that the world was actually created in 6 days 6,000 years ago? What does "respect" mean, then?

Respect for others' beliefs means that I generally say nothing about my own in the presence of others, nor do I generally debate them or question them openly. In fact, this is about the only time I've ever held any kind of debate on this issue. My conversations with my wife, in total, comprise of about an hour's worth of discussion, during which I agreed to accompany her to church, out of respect and a desire to support her, while maintaining my intention to not participate in any way other than standing or sitting as appropriate. Of my own beliefs I say very little publicly to anyone, and respect others' traditions and desires. I don't send birthday gifts to my Muslim niece and nephew, for example, because it's against their beliefs. And I would certainly never classify my sister's beliefs as "imaginary" or "delusional". Rather, they are simply different than mine. And that's ok.

That is silence, not respect. Silence can mask contempt as well as admiration. Again, are their beliefs right? Are yours? How about flat-earthers (as well as Muslims and Catholics)? Do you hold their beliefs as worthy of accepting? Or your own? If not, you can hardly speak of respect.

Again, it's an evasion of the question, "Who is right?"

I'd say your wife is far more right than you are and you are well-advised to accept her faith and make a choice to believe in spite of material evidence. It's called "faith". (Never mind the benefits of family unity )

You can save your judgment of my marriage for yourself, sir. I can see you've hopped right back on the "superior and insulting" mode of communication that you so freely choose when you find someone who is confident enough to withstand your endless ranting about you "being right". And no, throwing quotations from CS Lewis at me won't have any impact on my beliefs. I've read CS Lewis and find it unimaginative in the extreme, and quite frankly, boring (no disrespect intended to any Narnia fans).

As far as my definition of respect, it's going into someone's church as an attendee and standing when appropriate, and sitting when appropriate, while respecting myself enough to stand by my beliefs. That's respect. Call it what you want. You'd do well to learn how to treat others here with respect and not arrogance and insults. I'm respectful enough to grant that what you believe is true to you. Maybe you should consider being respectful enough to grant that what I believe is true to me, and that that should be good enough.

When my Muslim sister has chosen to engage me in conversation I've been open to discussing her beliefs as if they are reality, which they are to her. I haven't avoided the conversation. But I'm still capable of keeping my own beliefs mine, while respecting her traditions and ways of life. That is "family unity", not everyone jumping on the same bandwagon "just because". Perhaps you'd suggest that if I had an alcoholic brother, we should all then head down to the local bar every night and toss several back in the name of "family unity"?

In all seriousness, I haven't "deliberately avoided" anything. I've told you my exact thoughts on this subject fairly consistently in the last few days. All I've gotten back is that I "lack knowledge", "deliberately avoid the truth", etc etc. Now, I may be deliberately avoiding your version of the truth, but so what? I've got mine.

In the end, it's all really just your subjective opinion of my reality. And it means about as much to me as my garbage man's opinion of what kind of TV dinners I like to eat.

FTR, it's Stouffers. And that's the truth. And whether or not you believe that that is right, is, well, irrelevant. *shrug*

[Avatar]

That is silence, not respect. Silence can mask contempt as well as admiration. Again, are their beliefs right? Are yours? How about flat-earthers (as well as Muslims and Catholics)? Do you hold their beliefs as worthy of accepting? Or your own? If not, you can hardly speak of respect.

It's respecting the right of others to hold beliefs that differ from your own, without denigrating them for doing so. When it comes to belief, in which there is no right or wrong, in which there can be no definitive right or wrong, the question is utterly moot.

It doesn't matter who is right. If I don't share a belief, then I must automatically assume it is "wrong." And to me it is. The respect comes in when you accept that to the person holding a particular belief, theirs is right. And no disagreement can change that. So we are faced with the choice of either acepting that they believe something different, or opposing them, and insisting that what they believe is wrong...not worthy of belief.

It's possible to disagree with their belief and still accord them respect. Even if it's to respect their right to hold a differing opinion. Respect does not depend on sharing that belief. Indeed, the two issues are quite seperable.

--A

[Loredoctor]

That is silence, not respect. Silence can mask contempt as well as admiration. Again, are their beliefs right? Are yours? How about flat-earthers (as well as Muslims and Catholics)? Do you hold their beliefs as worthy of accepting? Or your own? If not, you can hardly speak of respect.

It's respecting the right of others to hold beliefs that differ from your own, without denigrating them for doing so. When it comes to belief, in which there is no right or wrong, in which there can be no definitive right or wrong, the question is utterly moot.

It doesn't matter who is right. If I don't share a belief, then I must automatically assume it is "wrong." And to me it is. The respect comes in when you accept that to the person holding a particular belief, theirs is right. And no disagreement can change that. So we are faced with the choice of either acepting that they believe something different, or opposing them, and insisting that what they believe is wrong...not worthy of belief.

It's possible to disagree with their belief and still accord them respect. Even if it's to respect their right to hold a differing opinion. Respect does not depend on sharing that belief. Indeed, the two issues are quite seperable.

--A

Post of the day. Without a doubt.

[rusmeister]

That is silence, not respect. Silence can mask contempt as well as admiration. Again, are their beliefs right? Are yours? How about flat-earthers (as well as Muslims and Catholics)? Do you hold their beliefs as worthy of accepting? Or your own? If not, you can hardly speak of respect.

It's respecting the right of others to hold beliefs that differ from your own, without denigrating them for doing so. When it comes to belief, in which there is no right or wrong, in which there can be no definitive right or wrong, the question is utterly moot.

It doesn't matter who is right. If I don't share a belief, then I must automatically assume it is "wrong." And to me it is. The respect comes in when you accept that to the person holding a particular belief, theirs is right. And no disagreement can change that. So we are faced with the choice of either acepting that they believe something different, or opposing them, and insisting that what they believe is wrong...not worthy of belief.

It's possible to disagree with their belief and still accord them respect. Even if it's to respect their right to hold a differing opinion. Respect does not depend on sharing that belief. Indeed, the two issues are quite seperable.

--A

I agree completely on not denigrating the person. But ideas - now that's another matter. We can accord someone else the right to hold a different belief, respect the person as a human being, and hold their idea to be completely wrong, however right they may think it. And you do do that with Christianity.

So this

When it comes to belief, in which there is no right or wrong, in which there can be no definitive right or wrong, the question is utterly moot.

we disagree upon completely.

This

It's respecting the right of others to hold beliefs that differ from your own, without denigrating them for doing so.

we agree upon.

So we are faced with the choice of either acepting that they believe something different, or opposing them, and insisting that what they believe is wrong...not worthy of belief.

Why must this be "a choice?" Surely it's clear that it's possible to do both. They are not mutually exclusive. I do accept that you believe things that are completely different and can simultaneously say that you are wrong in your beliefs, without once insulting you, saying that you are stupid, or inferior, or whatever. There's nothing insulting about saying that someone can actually be right and others wrong. You do it on material truths all the time and don't find it insulting. Are the examples I offered of flat earth or 6-day creation worthy of belief?

[rusmeister]

Actually, no. To you, I am sure it is very real. To me it is not. Again, each to their own truth.

The question this deliberately evades is "Who's right?" It's fine for avoiding confrontation. It is worse than useless for establishing truth. It says "There is no truth" and this is a deliberate choice of ignorance regarding a world that we see before us that was definitely formed somehow.

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

CS Lewis

Respect for others' beliefs means that I generally say nothing about my own in the presence of others, nor do I generally debate them or question them openly. In fact, this is about the only time I've ever held any kind of debate on this issue. My conversations with my wife, in total, comprise of about an hour's worth of discussion, during which I agreed to accompany her to church, out of respect and a desire to support her, while maintaining my intention to not participate in any way other than standing or sitting as appropriate. Of my own beliefs I say very little publicly to anyone, and respect others' traditions and desires. I don't send birthday gifts to my Muslim niece and nephew, for example, because it's against their beliefs. And I would certainly never classify my sister's beliefs as "imaginary" or "delusional". Rather, they are simply different than mine. And that's ok.

That is silence, not respect. Silence can mask contempt as well as admiration. Again, are their beliefs right? Are yours? How about flat-earthers (as well as Muslims and Catholics)? Do you hold their beliefs as worthy of accepting? Or your own? If not, you can hardly speak of respect.

Again, it's an evasion of the question, "Who is right?"

I'd say your wife is far more right than you are and you are well-advised to accept her faith and make a choice to believe in spite of material evidence. It's called "faith". (Never mind the benefits of family unity )

You can save your judgment of my marriage for yourself, sir. I can see you've hopped right back on the "superior and insulting" mode of communication that you so freely choose when you find someone who is confident enough to withstand your endless ranting about you "being right". And no, throwing quotations from CS Lewis at me won't have any impact on my beliefs. I've read CS Lewis and find it unimaginative in the extreme, and quite frankly, boring (no disrespect intended to any Narnia fans).

As far as my definition of respect, it's going into someone's church as an attendee and standing when appropriate, and sitting when appropriate, while respecting myself enough to stand by my beliefs. That's respect. Call it what you want. You'd do well to learn how to treat others here with respect and not arrogance and insults. I'm respectful enough to grant that what you believe is true to you. Maybe you should consider being respectful enough to grant that what I believe is true to me, and that that should be good enough.

When my Muslim sister has chosen to engage me in conversation I've been open to discussing her beliefs as if they are reality, which they are to her. I haven't avoided the conversation. But I'm still capable of keeping my own beliefs mine, while respecting her traditions and ways of life. That is "family unity", not everyone jumping on the same bandwagon "just because". Perhaps you'd suggest that if I had an alcoholic brother, we should all then head down to the local bar every night and toss several back in the name of "family unity"?

In all seriousness, I haven't "deliberately avoided" anything. I've told you my exact thoughts on this subject fairly consistently in the last few days. All I've gotten back is that I "lack knowledge", "deliberately avoid the truth", etc etc. Now, I may be deliberately avoiding your version of the truth, but so what? I've got mine.

In the end, it's all really just your subjective opinion of my reality. And it means about as much to me as my garbage man's opinion of what kind of TV dinners I like to eat.

FTR, it's Stouffers. And that's the truth. And whether or not you believe that that is right, is, well, irrelevant. *shrug*

Look rd, you find my comments "insulting". You think my comments on marriage are of a personal nature rather than the mere question of whether someone is right or wrong.

I completely fail to see how saying that someone is right or wrong is insulting to the person. It merely brings out into the open that we disagree and what we disagree about.

I totally accept that you believe that what you believe is true. If I say that it is nonsense to speak of what is "true for you" or "true for me", then any scientist would have to agree regarding the truths they speak of. It cannot be true that God created the world and also true that there is no God. One excludes the other. In other words, one of the propositions is definitely wrong. This is not an insult, any more than it is a personal insult to a flat-earther to say that their cherished belief is wrong.

The logical question is whether the statement by Lewis I offered is true, not whether you find him boring or unimaginative. That IS evasion.

My statement on family unity is personal opinion, which I hold to be true. (You certainly don't seem willing to discuss it with me now as if it were true.) One of the initial motivators for me, in returning to Christianity, WAS family unity and I found the move to be of tremendous personal benefit. A lot of what I learned about history and theology came later.

Look, maybe you know the entire history of the Christian Church thoroughly, for all I know, and know all about Saints Ignatius, Augustine, Chrysostom, the Councils, the Great Schism, etc. I don't know what you know. I can only comment on what it seems like and accept correction when you prove differently.

Objective facts are different from subjective opinion.

I am sorry that you take my comments as personal insults. They are not intended as such. I've said so time and again. Some here now understand that when I say "I'm right", that there is no arrogance behind the strong personal conviction. Others do not yet get that. I discuss ideas, not personalities. I have nothing to say about how you personally get along with your wife. I do say that her faith is far, far closer to the truth than atheism or agnosticism, and don't apologize for that.

[Fist and Faith]

The question this deliberately evades is "Who's right?" It's fine for avoiding confrontation. It is worse than useless for establishing truth. It says "There is no truth" and this is a deliberate choice of ignorance regarding a world that we see before us that was definitely formed somehow.

"Who's right?" does not apply. No more than "Which painting is more beautiful?" It is subjective. The universe exists. That doesn't mean it was intentionally formed. And even if it was intentionally formed, that doesn't mean it was done so for the purposes that you believe in.

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

And yet, this may well be the case. I believe it is. No meaning. Not in the objective, "This is the one, true answer" sense.

My approach has been to start at the beginning. Can the universe be uncaused? If you think it can not, then make your case. If you convince me, then make a case for a creator, as opposed to a mere cause. It you convince me, then make a case for the creator you believe in.

Your approach is to jump right to the end: "The God I believe in exists, and you should all choose to believe in Him." That's not how things work. But you say that our attitude of respecting your beliefs, accepting that the answers you have found work just as well for you as our answers work for us, is evading the question "Who's right?". Incorrect.

[rdhopeca]

I'd say your wife is far more right than you are and you are well-advised to accept her faith and make a choice to believe in spite of material evidence. It's called "faith". (Never mind the benefits of family unity )

This is the part that disturbs me. The rest of your post I am fine with, however, this judgment of my marriage is, frankly, uncalled for in this debate. What if I were to say, "I'd say you are a spineless coward for not sticking to your principles even though you got married, and giving up what you believe to appease your wife by converting to Christianity. Sounds to me like your beliefs now can't really be accepted as viable, if your beliefs before were so easy to drop at your wife's whim".

Now, I absolutely don't believe that to be the case. And even if I did, I'd have too much respect for you and your choices to come right out and say it. But then, I suppose, from your vantage point, I'd be "deliberately avoiding the truth" of your "intellectual cowardice".

I'll gladly discuss my beliefs here, how I got to them, and why I maintain them. But I'm not going to "well-advise" you to do anything. Respect or silence as that may be.

[Cybrweez]

I agree completely on not denigrating the person. But ideas - now that's another matter. We can accord someone else the right to hold a different belief, respect the person as a human being, and hold their idea to be completely wrong, however right they may think it. And you do do that with Christianity.

So this

When it comes to belief, in which there is no right or wrong, in which there can be no definitive right or wrong, the question is utterly moot.

we disagree upon completely.

This

It's respecting the right of others to hold beliefs that differ from your own, without denigrating them for doing so.

we agree upon.

So we are faced with the choice of either acepting that they believe something different, or opposing them, and insisting that what they believe is wrong...not worthy of belief.

Why must this be "a choice?" Surely it's clear that it's possible to do both. They are not mutually exclusive. I do accept that you believe things that are completely different and can simultaneously say that you are wrong in your beliefs, without once insulting you, saying that you are stupid, or inferior, or whatever. There's nothing insulting about saying that someone can actually be right and others wrong. You do it on material truths all the time and don't find it insulting. Are the examples I offered of flat earth or 6-day creation worthy of belief?

Post of the day, w/o a doubt.

[Fist and Faith]

I agree completely on not denigrating the person. But ideas - now that's another matter. We can accord someone else the right to hold a different belief, respect the person as a human being, and hold their idea to be completely wrong, however right they may think it. And you do do that with Christianity.

So this

When it comes to belief, in which there is no right or wrong, in which there can be no definitive right or wrong, the question is utterly moot.

we disagree upon completely.

This

It's respecting the right of others to hold beliefs that differ from your own, without denigrating them for doing so.

we agree upon.

So we are faced with the choice of either acepting that they believe something different, or opposing them, and insisting that what they believe is wrong...not worthy of belief.

Why must this be "a choice?" Surely it's clear that it's possible to do both. They are not mutually exclusive. I do accept that you believe things that are completely different and can simultaneously say that you are wrong in your beliefs, without once insulting you, saying that you are stupid, or inferior, or whatever. There's nothing insulting about saying that someone can actually be right and others wrong. You do it on material truths all the time and don't find it insulting. Are the examples I offered of flat earth or 6-day creation worthy of belief?

Post of the day, w/o a doubt.

As far as this post goes, I agree. Nothing wrong with this attitude.

The problem we face when discussing the things we're discussing here is that it's difficult for things to stay at this level. I think you and rus are wrong about having found the one and only, true answer to the questions of meaning we all seem to search for at some point in our lives. But I do think you've found answers that are, objectively, as valid as mine; and, subjectively, the best for you, just as mine are the best for me.

OTOH, you guys believe you've found the one and only, true answer, and I'm going to Hell.

Now, this doesn't concern me, as far as my fate goes. I don't believe you're right, and I'm not even the slightest bit worried that I'm going to Hell. However, there's surely a difference in the way we view each other.

[Cybrweez]

I think I could agree w/that. There is a difference in viewing each other. Not sure whether its a difference in just our beliefs, or in the person themselves. They are tightly wrapped I guess.

So, what does that mean?