So is this an attempt at censorship? Please clarify. I don't mind criticism, but I don't feel like just because I have a different viewpoint that doesn't fit someone's template that I should be attacked out-right either. I don't attack other people for their own beliefs, in fact I completely understand and honor an athiest's POV out of my own experiences. I may not be real interested in every single criticism some people may have, but I do consider their viewpoint too as part of living.

Really honestly, I have no idea who exactly you are targetting with your message. So are you saying people shouldn't even talk about it or are you just saying people shouldn't push it? It sounds like you're trying to intimidate. If I give respect to others just as much as I expect it... if the problem here is that some random people on the internet made you feel disgruntled, then you have to consider the venue and the source. If you have no malice towards others for having opposite beliefs and totally respect it, then this thread existing is no problem for me whatsoever... it's the fact that you seem to almost hint at the desire to intimidate or suppress someone's expression and that seems in itself more than nuetral, more hostile.

What happened to just random conversation without the fear that you may be attacked for what you believe in? I don't get that thinking. I shouldn't have to suppress casual conversation just because it may open an argument... I can politely say it's my opinion and leave it there. I have no beef with anyone else who thinks differently...  but why does every discussion about religion and spirituality have to turn to an exhausting debate? Wasn't the point of your thread against debates that go no where?

So is this an attempt at censorship? Please clarify. I don't mind criticism, but I don't feel like just because I have a different viewpoint that doesn't fit someone's template that I should be attacked out-right either. I don't attack other people for their own beliefs, in fact I completely understand and honor an athiest's POV out of my own experiences. I may not be real interested in every single criticism some people may have, but I do consider their viewpoint too as part of living.

Really honestly, I have no idea who exactly you are targetting with your message. So are you saying people shouldn't even talk about it or are you just saying people shouldn't push it? It sounds like you're trying to intimidate. If I give respect to others just as much as I expect it... if the problem here is that some random people on the internet made you feel disgruntled, then you have to consider the venue and the source. If you have no malice towards others for having opposite beliefs and totally respect it, then this thread existing is no problem for me whatsoever... it's the fact that you seem to almost hint at the desire to intimidate or suppress someone's expression and that seems in itself more than nuetral, more hostile.

What happened to just random conversation without the fear that you may be attacked for what you believe in? I don't get that thinking. I shouldn't have to suppress casual conversation just because it may open an argument... I can politely say it's my opinion and leave it there. I have no beef with anyone else who thinks differently...  but why does every discussion about religion and spirituality have to turn to an exhausting debate? Wasn't the point of your thread against debates that go no where?

Marucha said:

So is this an attempt at censorship? Please clarify. I don't mind criticism, but I don't feel like just because I have a different viewpoint that doesn't fit someone's template that I should be attacked out-right either. I don't attack other people for their own beliefs, in fact I completely understand and honor an athiest's POV out of my own experiences. I may not be real interested in every single criticism some people may have, but I do consider their viewpoint too as part of living.

Really honestly, I have no idea who exactly you are targetting with your message. So are you saying people shouldn't even talk about it or are you just saying people shouldn't push it? It sounds like you're trying to intimidate. If I give respect to others just as much as I expect it... if the problem here is that some random people on the internet made you feel disgruntled, then you have to consider the venue and the source. If you have no malice towards others for having opposite beliefs and totally respect it, then this thread existing is no problem for me whatsoever... it's the fact that you seem to almost hint at the desire to intimidate or suppress someone's expression and that seems in itself more than nuetral, more hostile.

What happened to just random conversation without the fear that you may be attacked for what you believe in? I don't get that thinking. I shouldn't have to suppress casual conversation just because it may open an argument... I can politely say it's my opinion and leave it there. I have no beef with anyone else who thinks differently...  but why does every discussion about religion and spirituality have to turn to an exhausting debate? Wasn't the point of your thread against debates that go no where?

No, the thread's intention wasn't censorship, it was forced rationale.  I've said it a half dozen times now, you're more than allowed to believe what you want, but when discussing important topics, any stance you have should be properly supported and substantiated with use of evidence, proof, or at least a strong supporting theory.  Religion, as a whole, should stay in the realm of the spiritual and philisophical, and should have absolutely no place in discussions about human rights, technological advancements, or ethics.  The original post stated that I don't like debating religion becuase A:  you couldn't prove or disprove it so it was futile, and B: I don't like seeing religious points in debates not about religion for the reason explained in A.  

I do like discussing the mythological, philisophical, or spiritual implications of Christianity, Hinduism,Taoism, Muslim, and Buddhism, but the issue is that (at least online), I've yet to find a person with the logic and rationality needed to understand the difference between 'scientific or social truth' and 'the word of God.'  I'm frustrated with the prospect of bringing up religion in other debates becuase every time "god" is mentioned, someone (usually me) brings up how illogical it is to believe in a god, which is met not with the "you're right" or "I understand that but it gives me hope" or even the silly but true "I have a right to believe", but is followed by a wave of "but it's silly to have faith in science, too" or "you can't prove God doesn't exist, and that gives me all the reason in the world to believe in his holiness".  It's a series of terrible, flawed logic, semantics, and an ill-advised attempt by internet crusaders to try and debunk or at least criticize the scientific method, and that scares me. It scares me that, in an effort to justify believing in something without proof, people are willing to dismiss thousands of years of scientific advancements just so that the two 'faiths' are on equal standing.  

I may be a little immature when it comes to my hatred for religion, but I'm not wrong, and this wanton attack on atheism or attempted disproval of science, relegated to 'faith in truth' scares me and makes me wonder how we've advanced as far as we have.  That's why I have a problem with religious debates. 

So what you did is, set up a straw man argument in your first post in order to bait 'Religious folks' into the exact type of debate you claim to not like, with the intention of showing how stupid and illogical we all are. You even admint you have a hatred for religion (which was pretty obvious from the beginning). I guess what I'm saying is, you might be the Atheist version of the religious straw man you hate, because you criticize a 'wanton attack on atheism' while setting up a wanton attack on religion.

Also, I can only speak for myself in saying I'm certainly not attempting to debunk science or the scientific method (this is another 'straw man' used to attack people of faith, we're backwards crazy people who hate science, simply not true in most cases). I see some holes in current scientific theories on the origin of life, and it's perfectly acceptable for me to point out the holes I see in those theories. The scientific method is the best system we have for understanding the natural world around us, that certainly does not mean that every theory that comes out of the scientific method is set in stone and not up for debate, theories have changed drastically in the past, many will again in the future. Just because somebody debates against a scientific idea or theory or points out that science is not infallable, does not mean that person is debating against science or the scientific method.

Who's to say that's a bad thing?  I mean, I am all for freedom of speech and all, but I'd certainly want to censor people claiming black people are barbaric animals, or a group claiming jews are the reason for the world's shit, or that 47% of americans are leeching the system and need to be culled, or someone trying to advocate rape on women who are wearing revealing clothing, or that minorities shouldn't vote.  with freedom comes responsibility, but sometimes people are not responsible at all, and should be punished by having their rights at least regulated.  It's a sad truth, but preaching religion as a moral compass or answer to life's questions is irresponsible, and should be treated as such.  Realistically, you can't censor opinions, but you can take a stand against faulty logic and do all you can to spread truth in lieu of myth.

So while I agree Censorship is wrong, there has to be a middle ground, and heavily criticising religion's claims of truth is the best way to enforce social pressure on the less than accurate.  Terrible, I know, but it's the lesser of two evils.  Preaching religion should be dissuaded, that is unless the religious can prove their book is correct and that a divine creator designed us in his image and blah blah blah.  

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

How is the OP a straw man?  Sounds like a pretty accurate representation of religion to me.  perhaps not all religious people, but by the sounds of it, it seems like that the OP is only complaining about the types of religious people described in the OP.  The repeated insistences of "you can believe what you want" would indicate that, as long as you're responsible about your faith you should be allowed to practice it without fear of persecution.  Sounds to me like the complaint is specific to people who try to use God as an argument to hate, judge, or restrict something.  In which case, the argument is sound. 

Yes, let's dissuade people from the teachings of Jesus. It would be terrible if we started loving other people as much as ourselves, not killing people, not loving Money more than God (not being greedy), giving to the poor, helping our neighbor, turning the other cheek (meaning not returning an insult with another insult), caring for the sick, accepting those society casts out as undesirable, or any of the other crazy things He told us to do. What would this world be like? It just sounds awful! Why, my church might go to a 3rd world country to build another orphanage next year if that was taught! Or we might continue our program to help local families in financial distress (without even preaching to them) through offerings and a non-profit thrift store we run with volunteers, that would be terrible! God forbid, we might even FUND THAT ORPHANAGE WE BUILT!! Oh no!