Whoa - I feel so appreciated!

My point is that you consider the views of all theists as ridiculous?

It's this failure to discern between different views and perspectives that I think leads to a lot of the disagreements you become a part of. Your claims may be true of elements within theism but I don't think they can be true of it all. This is the kinda stuff that seems to lead to claims of hyperbole.

You should, you're my favourite Neo Nazi Honestly, most of the time I forget that you're a Theist because you don't continually bring up your religious views, you just argue the point whatever it is and you're capable of arguing any point from both sides.

Does this come down to my having used the word 'ridiculous'? Could you understand if said that yes I do find belief in anything supernatural to be ridiculous but could still respect someone who held those views, for other reasons, and accept that to the believer they are perfectly rational and justifiable views? But no, I couldn't have a relationship with them (keeping this vaguely on topic).

I think that some of my claims are true within all of theism, and others aren't. It's not that black and white. I think it's my lack of specificity that causes the problems, not hyperbole since I try to avoid deliberate exaggeration as I now recognise that for what it is.

I think all theism is ridiculous is hyperbole. Lack of specificity can be hyperbolic because it applies an idea to a much wider target than previous.

So I understand your point but only to a point. If I think something is worthy of derision I don't consider it worthy of discussion. If someones views are perfectly rational and justifiable to them then why would you mock them.

I'm being kind of nitty here but you apply terms much wider than I'd be comfortable with.

There would have to be some kind of Deus Ex Machina somewhere in her worldview. What that might be, and to what extent would I accept/reject her that's gotta be left to the hypothetical. Otherwise, yeah, you're right. There wouldn't be much joy in a relationship like that for me.

Ok, maybe I shouldn't use the word 'ridiculous' since the literal meaning is that the subject is worthy of ridicule and I don't actually ridicule anyone, there's no mocking being done by me. I also wouldn't use the word 'derision', I think that has a different, stronger, connotations.

There's a difference though between believing your partner to be wrong about something, say they think the Packers are better than the Broncos, and them believing something that if wrong is truly far fetched to the point of delusion in the lay use of the word. There must be something you feel that way about, what about Scientology, would you say that believing in Thetans is ridiculous? Do you feel bemused tolerance? Perhaps that example is too close to what you actually believe (that there is a creator) to generate the same feeling I get when I consider religious claims.

Is there any belief that you consider ridiculous?

It seems to me that if you are a participating member of a church that you should help support that church. Religion isn't free.

Loads of beliefs I consider ridiculous but I wouldn't go where people holding them are likely to be hanging out to point and laugh .

You keep saying things like that; 'mocking', 'point and laugh', 'derision' but I'm not doing any of that, I'm even questioning my own use of the word 'ridiculous'. I might occasionally strike a mocking tone but no more than anyone else and it's very post/poster and mood dependent and nothing to do with my overall view vs anyone else's. I think my posting style has become much more even toned and I rarely get emotional these days, even when it might be considered justified. Now is a good example. Some of the posts I swap with Fret are an even better example.

On the point of beliefs that you find ridiculous, can you give some examples? What type of belief do you find ridiculous to the point that you wouldn't consider a relationship with someone who held it? Or is this whole exchange literally a 'why are you here' thing for you? If so, we can stop now.

Mocking, pointing and laughing and derision are terms all consistent with ridiculous, consider what ridiculing someone actually is. Also I was kinda joking hence the very rare similey used in my post.

I would not entertain a relationship with someone who held certain values that were different from mine. These values are important though but a belief or absence of belief in god wouldn't be enough, like I get that you think it makes your worldviews incompatible but I think that aspect of a worldview is much less important than others.

So what term would you use?

Are you deliberately not naming a particular type of belief that you find ridiculous?

I've already said this once in the last week, and been mockingly described as a marriage guidance councilor for doing it, but I understand that different relationships work for different reasons. For me trust is super important, yet we have friends who don't trust each other and their relationships still work, or seem to anyway. Some people don't need to have someone to share their wavelength so perhaps those people would be happy to spend their lives with someone who sees the world very differently than they do. I think that for those people, it doesn't matter what the subject matter is, only the impact it has.

I could refer to the flat earth society or creationists as ridiculous if it's important to you. I'd rather not though I prefer disagreeing with people to ridiculing them.

I'm not going to get into who you would and who you wouldn't get into a relationship is I think your position is understandable but for me it gives too much weight to belief in god and it would ask more of a partner than I'm able to do myself.

Like theism just isn't that big a part of most peoples worldviews and if I were to exclude a group from my closest circle then I'd want better reasons than believing or not in god.

Yes it's important to me since you pulled me up on it. So you consider flat earthers to have a ridiculous belief system and yet you wouldn't want to actually ridicule them or have people accuse you of ridicule/derision/mocking?

Sounds exactly like where I am with theism. So I ask again, what term would you use? It's tricky isn't it.

Didn't ask you to, I was just trying to stay on topic.

Ok. But your opinion that theism isn't "that big a part of most peoples worldviews " is not only an unreasonably sweeping assertion since you can't possibly know that, but it's also very subjective. For me it's important because I believe that it informs many other views and perspectives. Someone who is capable of believing in a god may also be capable of believing other ridiculous hypotheses, such as that the earth is flat, or luck.

I believe that we're rapidly approaching the point where you put me back on ignore. And we got on so well for a short while. Sigh.

The relevant question is: who cares, really? IFF they also believe that the earth is flat, their problems extend far beyond theism. If they believe in luck, they're no different than probably 60+% of the entire population regardless of theism or not (as atheists can be supersticious).

What's far more important (at least to me) is how some personal conviction translates into moral values and actual actions. Hence, if someone believes in god and takes that as his reason to lead a good life, where's the problem? If someone's an atheist who adheres some moral code that comes out roughly the same - where's the big difference?

In contrast with that: If someone was a right winger, that WOULD actually influence their decision making in moral scenarios and so it would be far more decisive in accepting him as a partner - with or without a belief in god (or the flying spaghetti monster).

I find this whole attack on MB to be ridiculous, but you don't see me ridiculing you guys. I don't really understand what this thread's become.

Just an interesting aside which I've come across in my studies.

As you may or may not know, a common time between death and rebirth is about 800+ years but this is entirely individual in nature. During this time one plans one's entry with respect to blood line, family, nation with the aid of the higher realm which of course consists of angelic beings. the planning may have to do with karmic debts with particular individuals to consideration of meeting a loved one at the next earthly sojourn, but still purposeful.

There was one event to which the individual was the least free in his planning and that was one's wife or husband in the next earthly life. Go figure.

I do, do you think I'm arguing this for no particular reason? I actually do have better things to do, like work, and watching the Big Game on my other monitor.

Yes, it's scary isn't it, if you don't share that belief and care about things like that. I won't attempt to have you back up your 60%+ 'plucked from the air' figure if you'll return the favour sometime.

So you would be similar to the type of person I described when I said "Some people don't need to have someone to share their wavelength so perhaps those people would be happy to spend their lives with someone who sees the world very differently than they do. I think that for those people, it doesn't matter what the subject matter is, only the impact it has." Which was my less eloquent way of saying the same thing.

Funnily enough, I nearly went on to illustrate that by using right wing politics as the example.

It was more of a rhetorical question. I wanted to say: Is that really so important (and if so - why?)

Thank you. It's actually harder than I thought to get a clear answer to that. Probably because googling "good luck" leads to all sorts of crap but not a clear statistic. I guess the underlined is the answer to my question above. I can't quite follow why it's so important to you that someone not believe in the flying spaghetti monster if he/she is otherwise wickedly smart, funny and caring. Who knows - perhaps you'll find someone who will surprise (and challenge) you in how intelligently one can defend the idea of the fSM - why should that belief in itself be a deal breaker?

Depends on what you mean with wavelength. And it's not really that just the results/impact matters but rather if he/she is capable of intelligently defend his/her belief. Which is why I brought up the flat earth. In itself, I'd argue that is both a silly and benign belief. It's still rather alarming, as it shows a host of deficiencies in other parts of rational discourse.

IMO marriage is hard enough when two people have the same world view and belief systems. Why put another monkey wrench and complication into the equation?

It is kind of like starting a business with someone who wants to take the business in a different direction. You start off on the wrong foot by teaming up with someone with a different mindset. Running a business is hard enough when people are of the same mind. Why start a long term relationship with someone who holds such different views?

I think people should marry within their respective religions. It just makes things so much simpler relationaly for the couple.

In the context of your post above I'd use wrong, it makes clear your position but it doesn't add the weighting a term such as ridiculous does. The thing with wrong is that you can say someone is wrong without them being ridiculous, that implies that their beliefs are worthy of derision and I'd generally avoid such claims.

It's an assertion I'm making based on my own experience, I'd argue it fairly strongly though because of what I consider a worldview to contain and that the belief, or absence of such, in god is only a part of it. I'd also hold that there are such divergent beliefs in God that universal claims that they are ridiculous are essentially meaningless

This seems like a reasonable discussion to me and certainly not one I'd be putting anyone on ignore over.

I don't see an attack on MB more a disagreement but if you want to ridicule me for it work away.

So I'm in the theist camp I guess. Firstly wrt me your assumption is in error. I don't think not believing in god is irrational and my faith is only a small part of those beliefs I consider important and I consider it less important than many others.

This is partly why I've contributed to this derail but I don't think either camp want to dismiss the other as ridiculous. It's this kind of language that leads to the kind of situations that premise this thread.

As an aside it wouldn't be important for me to try and get a partner to accept theism it would be important to have a partner understand why I did.

You can say that 'someone is wrong without them being ridiculous', you can 'generally, avoid such claims, but you can also say that some beliefs are ridiculous. You have at least one yourself, you consider flat Earth theory to be ridiculous. I'd like you to try to defend that because I think it at least help you to understand why I consider theistic belief to be ridiculous (for lack at this point of a better word than ridiculous or just plain 'wrong') without necessarily feeling a need to ridicule believers.

Ridicule is not how to win a debate, no matter how ridiculous I might find a position to be. Plus, I can't actually demonstrate that it's ridiculous.

(You think creationism is ridiculous? I thought you believed in the christian god and therefore also believed in the creation?)


I try to stay away from my own experiences, they're rarely going to be convincing. I don't even trust them myself since I know how easily fooled we are and how little I can trust my own perceptions.

If you total the Muslim world, for whom a belief in god is a big part of their world view, fundamentalist Christian Americans, Catholics, Hindus and Sikhs in India, Christians in South American countries, I believe we're rapidly approaching a total that would make your 'most people' claim seem at best that it might be a 'small majority' for whom their religious beliefs aren't a big part of their lives.

If you reduce religious beliefs to 'there are immortal, all powerful and all knowing gods', I think that I can say that I find that ridiculous and it's meaningful. I'm taking the one thing all religions have in common and starting there with my skepticism. Frankly, it only gets more ridiculous when I start to examine individual religion's claims.