I have beliefs which to me are "very obvious facts".

The world is far from what I want it to be.

However, I suspect a lot of people feel the same, but I also suspect lots of people think the world as it is is more or less fine.

It is clear to me what the world should be like.

For me, the main problems are:

2) Religion and the fact that the world would be a better place without religions in their current state. Maybe artificial religions for particular benefits can be put in place in teh future but that is nothing compared to how it is now.
3) People being dishonest to themselves and others - one example is a sort of "acting" in social group situations in order to represent what they want people to think of them, rather than "being who they actually are".


I shouldn't go round killing or even silencing people I don't like (unless they are being a nuissance) because people have the right to speak freely about their beliefs.

Should I act on my beliefs?

How should I act on my beliefs?

In particular, when in a discussion with a religious person, is it okay for me to say what I actually think? I will almost certainly offend the person because I will say something they don't like even though it is what I believe. Does it depend who it is? It shouldn't depend on who it is, but actually it probably does. This is because religious people are dishonest, and try to defend their dishonest "beliefs" (lieing to themselves) with even more elaborate dishonest lies. Imo.

My point is that you can debunk all of religion very quickly and simply through really simple arguments, and I will feel really bad if I actually tell someone something and they just walk away because they can't stand the truth.

What's the point in having beliefs if you don't live by them?

To debate, or not to debate a theist depends on how you foresee them reacting, and if it's negatively, try to determine how negative, and whether or not your satisfaction from the debate outweighs it.

For instance, if you like a really cute girl or guy, and want to go out with them, but they're a theist, it's probably best to not debate. It should be obvious why. However, if there is some proselytizer going around preaching to everyone for whatever reason, and they are a complete stranger to you, I would bet the satisfaction outweighs the negative reaction.

Here's a personal example. My mother is a christian, and she's pretty serious about it. It isn't uncommon for her to say stuff like, "god is watching over you", or something like that. Do I debate her? Hell no. Why not? She's my mother.

If she were some random on the street, I might possibly lay into her, or I might just ignore her. It would depend on how I felt.

this isn't generally true so perhaps you should reevaluate your own beliefs before you look down on others.

yes, 'many' religious beliefs can be factually debunked. But not 'all' of them.

'""'joke'"," right"'?'"'

Are you aware how potentially creepy this sounds?

Edit: Also, in the OP the 1. is missing.

Please be debunking the religious claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Just as an example.

I probably don't want to go out with a theist if they have strong beliefs. But maybe if they're smokin' hot then I can make an exception. I haven't come across this situation before though.

lol that's a funny but relevant example. However in all seriousness, the reason I might steer clear of arguing with preachers is that I have this presupposition that most of them are unintelligent and ignorant. They might even throw a punch or two for whatever reason. It's not my thing to get into fights.

What if it was your father and he is dissappointed and somewhat "surprised" that you choose to go out on Friday night because all your friends go out on Friday night, even though you have been having Friday night dinner all of your life with your family? And he doesn't want you to do it again? He's pretty religious also.


"unless they are being a nuissance" was only in reference to "silencing someone", not killing someone of course. I would never kill anyone.
And by "being a nuissance" I mean standing outside Buckingham Palace shouting through a speakerphone his beliefs, to which I say "shut up!". That's what I mean by silencing him. But yeah it did sound creepy, my bad.

Also, just ignore the fact that 1. is missing. I wrote something about overpopulation of the earth but then decided I don't know enough about it and so left it out.

I'm not sure if you're serious. If you want, I can do. It's just a very tedious task, and I don't wish to turn this thread into a barrage of claims which I have to "disprove", which then turn into arguments etc... . Maybe we could try to keep this thread on topic before it goes through the usual RGT ritual of going off-topic.

What do you mean by "live by them"?

Didn't Hitler "live by his beliefs"?

My point - and I think RollWaves as well - is that you have a very curious notion of what "debunking a religious claim" would entail. If I had to guess, then I'd assume that you think that "lolwat?" is sufficient or at least able to carry the majority of the weight of proof. That's not a proper debunkment, though.

So yeah, I'm serious. How do you propose to debunk the following religious claims (just roughly outline the line of argument you'd choose for each; I equally don't want this to turn into the usual "yes its tru - no it isnt - yes it is") - just as a means to clarify what you mean by "you can debunk all of religion very quickly and simply through really simple arguments."

- Jesus rose from the dead
- Mohammed had visions from God in his dreams
- God revealed himself to Mose in the burning bush
- Krishnas parents had a vision of him having four hands
- David was anointed King of Juda

Solomonoff Induction, Hume

Is this disputed? IIRC, it's only the extent of his kingdom that is in historical hot water...

edit: FWIW, I think a lot hinges on whether the assertion is that religious claims are easy to debunk from a persuasion POV or a justification POV

you're in danger of him considering you a nuissance (sic)

That's quite insulting of my intelligence. Don't apologize though. I have hardly been in discussion with you on here (and so you didn't know you were insulting my intelligence).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woa5MVAWcXM

This is close enough to my beliefs on this topic. Your last one may be true or false, fact or fiction. Either way, I don't care so much. You can check on wiki. "Why believe in wiki and not God?" is a nonsense question. Even if wikipedia is a conspiracy on the subject "David being King of Juda", ... who cares? It was like thousands of years ago and doesn't affect anyone's lives nowadays. It's not even interesting when a fact like that is stated in a vacuum.

Personally, I lol'd

There's a reason I asked him.

All of these claims are disputed to some extend or other. That's the point.

This comes fairly close to "lolwat?" as a suggestion of an avenue of debunkment. I might augment that to "lolwat?wikipedia LDO."

In any case - if that's all you got, then I would +1 RollWave's post.

Freteloo: do you really care about whether or not "David was anointed King of Juda" is a true or false statement??

Also when I wrote "all religious arguments in OP" I meant to edit it to "most", but probably forgot.

Agree.

And for a bit of info on King David: Link

And with that I'll end my short derail.

Generally, I care about good arguments.

But to give a short answre to your OP

"In particular, when in a discussion with a religious person, is it okay for me to say what I actually think? I will almost certainly offend the person because I will say something they don't like even though it is what I believe. Does it depend who it is? It shouldn't depend on who it is, but actually it probably does. This is because religious people are dishonest, and try to defend their dishonest "beliefs" (lieing to themselves) with even more elaborate dishonest lies. Imo."

(the bolded, btw, is equally insulting)

- Of course it's ok to say what you think.
- To most of our statements, there's more than just a "fact-side". Link I can't fathom that's news to you.
- So act accordingly.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Please explain what your point is here. Why should I care about King David more than I care about James Hensinken?

That was just some backround info for zumby. Nothing to see there.

Why is it insulting?

What does your link have anything to do with this? Do you not think it is reasonable to base our beliefs (we teach children in schools) on fact, not on what makes us feel good?

Ugh.

You asked "How should I treat those around me based on what I believe to be true given that I know that it'll likely cause them discomfort and emotional stress to tell them what I believe/think of their beliefs." I gave you an answer. If you can't figure out how the link pertains to your question, then

Edit: you mean this answer:

I am a bit scared to say what I think because people might dislike me because their beliefs conflict with mine. However, I might give it a go. Not on my Dad to begin with, but with friends and maybe a few randoms and see what happens.

I don't get the thing about "more than just a fact-side" though.

There are enough problems in the world. People should believe in facts, not believe in what they want to be true or what makes them happy because this complicates things even more and creates more problems in the world. Moreover, if I acted based on what I wanted to be true, I would have killed myself when I was younger to try and get into heaven.

Sentences have more than just an objective semantic content.

If you talk to people it's usually a good idea to be aware of which "ear" they'll be listening with. Another way of saying that is: exercise empathy.