I am glad you found your path to Atheism.....this community, however is a refuge from hell threats, heaven bribes, rapist priests and domestic/religious violence that many perpetrators fling in retaliation for our declarations of freedom from theocracy

@Larry68Feminist I thought I made it clear that I don't want that type of believer here either,. If I come across someone doing this, and I choose to confront them, I will be firm and resolute with them; but I will not engage in rude behavior that will just reaffirm their beliefs.

Perhaps, however, the best way for us to get them to leave is to simply ignore them.

@Joanne I agree that the most effective way to defeat religious bigotry is stone cold silence so here in agnosticland I instantly block believers without warning

In my opinion faith is a way of a human brain retaining sanity whilst trying to make a decision about difficult questions. It then goes to the simple unproveable answers given by religionists. Simplicity is a powerful decision maker. Trouble is this does not make the decision right. Only continuing logic , reason and science can get nearest to the truth. Once decided the faith comunity switch off and my only desire is that we try to switch it back on to reason etc without bothering them or you. Anger is a reasonable response but not very effective in changing minds because they will defend faith above all. Worth trying though?

Agree. We have to listen to their nonsense in every other aspect of our lives. They are not needed here and in my case not wanted

@Cinco besides, if using sound arguments in a calm, rational voice worked religion would have died out well, centuries ago, minimum.

Perhaps because we do not want religion to continue forever. I for one do not think that has to happen because I believe in humans, logic, reason and science. Also like yourself and all religionists our brains were blank sheets at birth that have been filled incorrectly.

@Mcflewster see here's the problem. Your method doesn't work. If it did, religion would already be gone. It's been tried. It's failed.

And seriously - this is just so ironic - just because you believe it (that it will work) it has to be the only way. That sounds just ever so familiar, can't place my finger where I've heard that line of "reasoning" before.

@1of5 I would like to suggest that because you post to 'Agnostic' perhaps you do not know it will succeed either- obviously with a new approach and new words and whatever but if we do not try we will never know what works. Just want people to be more hopeful about the future. Not saying I know any answer except trying

@Mcflewster suggest what you will, but I'm not agnostic. Gods are man made inventions, nothing more.

One need not be agnostic to join here, and I joined through humanist.com.

But see, it's not a new approach. That's not to say it won't work on some but it will most definetly not - and history seems to back this up - eliminate religion altogether on its own. Times are changing, not as many people are religious anymore and things are looking up from that perspective. Unfortunatly the hard core will double, then triple down on trying to get their way and these people cannot be reached by calm, rational debate with facts - they don't believe any of your facts are valid. Nor will they.

I'd like to see religion dissapear but if people want to believe that's thier choice. I just want to prevent as much damadge religion causes as I can, and fight them when they overstep thier bounds (which they do all the damn time).

We've had religion since before recorded history (most probably, anyways) and it's going to take an awfully long time to be fully rid of it, if ever. Our social structures and many, many societies have been/are built around religion and theres the very good possibility that we've been selectevly breeding belief into ourselves. Talk about GMO's never seems to focus on us, yet it should, since we are.

So I think it will be very hard, and a very long time till we're rid of the curse of religion.

@1of5 "So I think it will be very hard, and a very long time till we're rid of the curse of religion"
I hope it does not surprise you that I agree with this statement . I just feel that to look for progress with anything with a negative attitude is counterproductive.

I base my optimism on helping people to trust science which is a method that we are born with and mostly squashed out of us by well meaning people. please see my Science teachers group on this site. That change to science in itself will take a complete change in science education over centuries but is at the root of every change away from religion. And don't forget. Humans work in mysterious ways. Mysterious because they have not been invented yet.

" We're up against dogma" Would it be wrong as soon as a dogmatic statement is pronounced to ask for evidence. One must be prepared to talk about acceptable evidence i.e no hearsay or ancient texts. I know it will be difficult but worth trying.

@Mcflewster The problem is that it won't change any devout minds. The mind protects itself from these challenges, because there's real pain in having cherished beliefs "attacked," even if merely questioned. It's not rational, but emotional; that's the dogma I'm referring to. And the religious line often discourages any questioning (e.g., come with the faith of a child, it's a mystery, God shall not be tested, a fool says in his heart there is no God). A friend of mine and I would discuss religion a lot, and he is a very smart guy who genuinely questioned his beliefs — but, despite being the closest I'd seen to breaking free of those shackles, he always snapped back to his religious upbringing and the platitudes he'd been taught that felt reassuring whenever doubt crept in.

Shuts them up is good but needs following up to see if anything is changed.

@Mcflewster

I don't care if their mind is changed. I am sick of Christians pressuring me. I never hassle Christians about their religion.

Ken is a 66-year-old psychologist from Portland, Oregon. His first message:

"I really like your playful, creative, giving being. You're more "spiritual" than most religious people. I'm curious how an "atheist" can live that way."

This is my response after two Skype sessions:

Ken,

During two Skype sessions I repeatedly asked to change the subject. I was tired of talking about religion.

"We should be able to talk about anything," you insisted. "I don't want to talk about hiking. Hiking is not a deep subject." With this you shut me down.

This is controlling behavior. I felt pressured and hassled by you about religion and spirituality.

I do not want to spend another minute being grilled by you about why I am an atheist, religion and spirituality.

Yesterday a man I used to date, Rich, dropped by as I was kneading four loaves of bread. With a master degree, Rich is highly intelligent and an atheist. Unlike you, Rich immediately saw the insult in your first message.

I told Rich you could not understand how I can have loving kindness without attending church and believing in a god. "I get asked that by Christians all the time," Rich replied.

I would never corner Christians and demand that they explain themselves. Yet you and your compatriots think this is acceptable behavior. "I enjoyed the couple of conversations we had," you wrote. It was not fun for me.

Christians who don't know me often demand, as you did, that I explain:

1. Why I am an atheist.
2. How the universe began (as if being an atheist automatically makes me an astrophysicist). "Nobody knows," I reply. "Science is advancing every year."
3. What happens when people die. "Nobody knows," I reply.
4. What is "spirituality."

You may think your questions were unique. They were not. Rich and I both find being grilled by Christians rude and tiresome.

I suggest you see a therapist to discuss your bias against atheists.

Yes, I am perfectly capable of "agreeing to disagree." How else do you think I live peacefully in an area dominated by Republicans and Christians?

Ken, atheists like me are often hassled by Christians, demanding that we justify our beliefs. I don't have to justify my lack of belief in an invisible deity to anyone.

@LiterateHiker I have found a wonderful believer with an adult Atheist son who has no interest in converting me or her son....her interests are lifestyle romance aging gracefully in wellness and our shared commitment to world peace.....sorry so many creeps in your province harass you....try this on the next one: "you are almost like German Lutherans or catholics ready to tattoo my arm with answers to Jewish gypsy gay or Atheist questions " just say no to xians xmas eve and all the rest of the fake calendar back dated 800 years after a vaginal virgin birth never happened

@LiterateHiker I have no bias against atheists. Just think that we should all combine under one banner which is not included in the name of the site we are both posting on. Agnostic however is a good holding place. Please do not say that you know my beliefs. They are elsewhere on this site and it states there that can be improved by you.

Good question - needs a separate post?

Meditative prayer is only one type of prayer they teach. They also teach petitioning prayer and have elaborate and detailed teachings about the countless wonderful results that one can expect from it as a believer vs being a non-believer. To wit:

God can be expected to bless the righteous and confound the wicked.

God will heal you (or even cast mountains into the sea) if you ask him and have just a modicum of faith that he will do it.

God will protect and encourage you.

God will enlighten you, making you wiser than the merely experienced.

It goes on and on.

Although it's very easy to corner them on these things, there's also an elaborate chain of doctrines explaining why it doesn't work, which succinctly is:

You have not because you ask not
You ask and have not because you ask amiss (in modern terms, "you're doing it wrong", and the ways you can be wrong are endless)

So they are well inoculated against reason in this area, and tend to keep trying harder with the same results. It's pitiable, not admirable.

@mordant sure. I understand your point and agree with you. I encounter this same thing all the time studying the vedas. They didnt understand mechanisms or working of things. Only cause and effect. So their conjecture about "the contents of the black box in between" was often really truncated and irrational compared to our knowledge today. Then they went off into bloviations when they took that asinine explanation further. You have to trace a lot of the original thought back to the roots to see the evolution. That way you can understand where it came from and its' folly so as to parse it off properly.

@Donotbelieve

[getyarn.io]