Yeah, good luck with that.

Same

You are correct. I’m unable to trace the quote to anyone

Apparently just asking what would it take for them to not believe in God is enough. Then sit back and make like a Darwin

Well put. It was ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ (Thomas Henry Huxley) after all who coined the term ‘agnostic.’

Darwin had been on the brink of entering religious training. To claim that he was an atheist is to show one's ignorance. Because of his religious leanings he did not publish his thesis, until Wallace was about to publish the same concept, based on his years of research in South America.
the claim you refer to is based on "lying for God is excusable, because the end justifies the means." Notwithstanding that the bible specifically states that those who lie can not gain entrance to heaven.

I can tell you that I never expect a religious person in debate to agree with me, or concede a point, or admit to doubts. That's not how it works. In arguments, people tend to double down rather than admit they might be wrong. But, it just might be that a religious person might go away and think about what was said. Change in religious people away from religion has to come from within, and just maybe we can have an influence, but thinking we might change people during debate ignores the reality of belief and human psychology.

@David1955

One of the surprises to me is to realize how much some of my friends and family are emotionally hurt when I give voice to my views on theism, and on the moral systems usually associated with the main theistic systems in the US (i.e.: Christianity, Judaism, Islam and (perhaps importantly) a generic sort of theism that many of my friends seem to embrace).

Anyway, some of what we're saying overlapping, but what I won't do is engage with someone where there is some understanding that the objective "loser" of the "argument" needs to acknowledge they were wrong and go over to the other side. There are various reasons for this including:
a) I'm not going to do the work necessary to figure out all the problems with the arguments of a theist, particularly as being a theist (at this point) means they don't care to do the work themselves, IMO. So, my points may, in the moment, simply be recitation of my views, not a cogent argument, and they may be "perceived" as "winning". Still, I like being intellectually honest, and trying to give fair consideration to others' views. In a discussion with such a sloppy or intellectually lazy person, where there is some supposed agreement or tacit belief that I should "admit" that I am wrong and now go over to the other side, the point there is simply that my honesty and self-respect and respect for others are then being used against me.

b) While there is no "danger" that I will end up believing in god, what I really care about are the many various nuanced principles (aside from belief in God) that will come up in any free ranging discussion (if not debate), and they will get into territory where I am not as clear, or where I fail the principle itself with weak or inappropriate defense or development. I don't like being guilty of failing principles that I have only half formed but which I think are important, so this is another reason I stay away from debate, particularly with people who basically don't understand or give a damn about any of this.

c) If I were given to debate, I would not spend my time debating nonsense propositions where the debate is (arguably) lost by me simply by conceding that it can be useful to debate a nonsense proposition. What if we were debating whether to "believe in" the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster (let alone dedicating one's life to such). Is there a point to spending a single second on that "debate"?

d) but I do tend to care (I guess, in some way) about some of the people I speak with and it can also be damaging to me to get drawn into the idea that I am somehow going to convince them of something. Maybe I will, but it's dangerous territory (to me) in my view.

@kmaz well, frankly, on these matters I tend to let the cards fall where they may. On any form of belief in mysticism, I advise that people have the right of belief, but not the right to demand their belief be respected. Any offence taken by others is their problem.

Did you persist if faced with push back? I never was religious and my pat response to people who bring it up is, "Ya know God had nothing to do with religion. Religion is something man cooked up and it's been a real problem ever since."
Then they leave me alone. Now if someone asks what I believe as a serious question we can discuss things.
There was a woman here in the apartment complex where I live that was a real religious nutter, but like all abusers she would only pick her battles with people who she could bully. She left me alone after I used the previously mentioned statement. But she verbally attacked 2 other people, one to the point the cops were called and a judge granted the abused resident an order to keep the religious nutter from talking to the abused person. He shut down the nutters free speech argument because she does not have the right to terrorize, yell or cause a public disturbance. The nutter passed away 3 weeks ago, I know several who did a happy dance.

@silverotter11 Did I persist if faced with pushback? I guess that depends on what you mean by "persist" and what you mean by "pushback". I enjoyed a lively discussion, as much then as I do now.

But no, I have never (thus far, anyway,) been on either end of a restraining order. For what it's worth, though, I would have very much enjoyed debating your "pat response".

@AmyTheBruce I too enjoy a lively discussion. I wrote about the religious nutter as MY example of push back. I pretyy much figured you were never like that.
That might have been an interesting debate, at one time.LOL
WHat caused you to change you're point of view?

@silverotter11 Ha! How much time have you got?

My point of view changed suddenly and gradually, for reasons both large and small, benign and tragic. The transition was tidy and messy, emotional and logical, often at the same time. Death, fire, angry ranting and quiet contemplation were all involved at different points. The process took years, and yet concluded overnight.

How's that for a messed-up answer?

@AmyTheBruce It's a WONderful answer! Here is the one question I would love an answer to.
Why are there 2 creation stories in Genesis? Chapter one gives us everything including man and woman are created in the first 6 days and it is good AF. Then Chapter two gets a bit misty and there is a mud man created in their image and a wayward bitch out of a rib and things start to go south from there.
I asked it of my cousin who deeply religious and high up in the church. He just side stepped it completely. As we were at the memorial for my mom and we never see each other (I am out west and he is back east) never got to follow up on it. None of the Bible thumping people I know have an answer either.

@silverotter11 My old answer: The first story was an overview. The second story was just more detail. The plural pronoun was either God talking with the angels, or he was using the "royal" we.

My current answer: Isn't Lilith awesome?! She's the best character in the whole damn book, which is a neat trick, since she's not really in the book at all.

Not 100% useless, no. Maybe 90% useless.

For that remaining 10% , though, it can mean a lot. You can introduce thoughts that they've literally never thought before.

There are atheists who will still do that. I wonder if the more subtle street epistemology approach is better than outright “debate me” confrontation.

But yeah legal confrontation is warranted when they continue chipping away at Jefferson’s wall in the public sphere.

@AmyTheBruce good luck with that!

It depends on who it is. I've had good chats, WTF chats and crazytown chats. Religious nutters are like any other predator they look for the weak.

@silverotter11 all true. I have had some good ones too, but if you are a confident atheist around believers, sooner or later they either get personal or sound really dumb, trying on the usual bad history, mythology, theology, unproven claims and emotional blackmail and fear. I take comfort that when they either get personal or sound dumb, and I've induced cognitive dissonance and they have lost.

Yes, I though I was having a good discussion once and then they started spouting off about all the good god would do for his people.
No concept of what a godless life could be, all about what another entity (non existent) could do for them.
The eternal child fallacy, daddy will come and help you in the end. Grow the heck up!

Hi there. Am I right in saying that some religious groups insist that the US was designed to be officially Christian, and therefore, the US laws should enforce the doctrines of (their version of) Christianity? Considering that the US Constitution is a wholly secular document, aren't those people being disrespectful to the Constitution? Have they ever made an attempt to change it?

@p-nullifidian I meant to mention - I don't know how active they are, but I've heard about Project Blitz.

@Ryo1 Footwear? [projectblitz.com]

@p-nullifidian
That as well but...
[blitzwatch.org]

I state, up front, that I follow Zen Taoism. Someone, maybe the religious person, asks "What's that" and it becomes the conversation b/c it's much more interesting.

But, at least, Casper is cute!
I am, also, I expect, not angry with their god, for how can one be angry with a fairy tale character. I do get angry when they push their absurd "Jesus is the Answer" crap in my face, though.

Not positive this quote is directly from Darwin. Sorry for that. There are references to letters he wrote (recently auctioned letters) that made his doubts about certain dogmas clear.

[google.com]

I suggest saying something highly offensive. Like, "God fucking damn, you're God seems to be bloodthirsty!" and then walking away.

@rainmanjr i'd be picking a fight if i said something like that!

@Basem You can't fight after walking away yet your words, or idea, remains.