Religion 101 Final Exam

[Aramike]

*Yawn*

So?

So, I made my point regarding this in the entirety of my previous post. Just typing "so?" does nothing to refute or invalidate that argument.

I think all beliefs, including atheism, are open to criticism, no matter how strongly they are held. Is that clear enough?

Of course. Heck, why stop there? Why not criticize a 9 year old for believing in Santa Claus?

I'm not trying to equate religion with a juvenile belief, by the way. My point is that, just because something is subject to criticism, doesn't mean one must take said action.

Sure, there are many reasons that I personally don't find myself believing in any deity. Frankly, I wish I could. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to blatantly find fault in those who are able to make the mental leap that I cannot.

If you don't believe in the concept of a God, go nuts. If someone is attempting to unduly impress upon you the existance of God in a way that truly affects your life, I encourage you to rebuttal.

But to challenge a belief system solely because it irritates your sensibilities is an invitation for conflict that, quite frankly, makes you into the "smaller" person.

Like I said, and cannot stress enough - I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, I don't appreciate your approach (especially since it's based upon your intolerence). If you wish to debate the validity of a deity, you should be able to do so without making fun of those who disagree. Especially considering that one's belief about the essense of oneself is so fundamental...

How can making the case for atheism take any other form but a rebuttal?

You're correct.

But, that again begs the question: why? More reasoning follows...

And it seems like any criticism of conspiracy theories, UFOlogy, etc. would also be verboten in your world.

Not at all.

First of all, I don't lump people who find religion as the basis of their very existance in with UFOs, etc. Secondly, I believe that many conspiracy theories are crackpot in nature, and I'll freely argue against them...

...yet, I don't START the discussion. I believe, if you're going to be a crackpot, go nuts. Should you publically try to convert others to your views, well, you should expect a rebuttal.

See, the difference between our approaches is that, due to my disbelief, I feel no need to pursue the subject. For some reason, many atheists (including yourself) do feel that need.

Why? Atheism is the absence of the belief. As such, the belief doesn't concern you. On the occasion that is does, I agree that a rebuttal makes sense. But to make fun simply to incite, well that makes your atheism just about as "religious" as Christianity.

In my view, at list Christianity has a point. Atheism is nothing more than "nope".

So you're intolerant as well?

In some cases, yes. But the reasoning behind the things I'm intolerent of is far more complex that "I don't like that".

Or do you in fact tolerate everything, including genocide, racism, etc... Everyone's intolerant of something.

I think I just cleared that up.

Oh, and by the way - belief in a deity is not quite genocide.

What can stop this from happening? Oh, I don't know, maybe discussing the issue? Maybe some parents change their minds, maybe some don't.

Impractical and pie-in-the-sky. Also, quite honestly, unimportant.

Parents can only be responsibly expected to raise their children according to their personal belief systems. Just because you wish this wasn't reality doesn't make it unreal.

Yup, sounds like I think it's all bad.

Just because you say you like certain derivatives of religion doesn't mean you don't believe that belief in a deity is "bad".

Besides - the inconsistancy of your viewpoint is staggering. You hate religion enough to lampoon your percieved belief in its "silliness", yet you claim to appreciate the products of religion. Hmm...

Show me where I said you can't discuss the discussion.

A weak argument designed to dodge the point. Here, let me illustrate in my next rebuttal:

Sorry. Is satire aimed at religion always meaningless?

Show me where I said satire against religion is always meaningless.

Silly response, right?

That's an infringement of free speech? If you're going to interpret "free speech" so expansively for no reason, how can you not see that your argument is guilty of the same thing?

Not at all "guilty" of the same thing. I didn't make the point that you shouldn't bring up the topic ... I merely was suggesting the wanton incitefulness of your bringing it up, and whether or not it was a responsible use of free speech.