AJ
"A belief system that can convince people that patiently exploring the issues behind rampant child sex abuse in a criminal organisation is a more appropriate response than shutting the whole thing down, is poisonous."
So then .. atheist Defence sex-abuse is patiently explored like theist Defence sex-abuse. You say defence is a necessity. So then...
what ? Atheist abuse is OK / explored / shut down / avoided by emotional talk of behemoth criminals...
Come on AJ, some clarity and logic. please.

I recall a doco looking at members of the population who most often retained the sharpness of their wit into old age, and, if I do not misrecall, it was those who had achieved high academic status and continued to practice, such as a professor.

It was further posited that the reason for this was not because they are learned, but rather because they made a daily practice of learning new things.

And from biology, it is not the strong who survive but rather those who can adapt best and in order to do so, learning new tricks fast is the name of the game.

Arguably, atheism is far less likely to impede a person when required to learn something new as opposed to those bent over with misguided religious beliefs.

..

" ... AIDS kills don't be silly, put a condom on your willy. ... "

<<When atheists try to prove a point, endlessly, life is made very difficult for some...>>

<<Secondly, I have seen no evidence of believers finding it difficult to believe...>>

Life involves many things, that operate at various times. So when a person's life is made difficult (in various ways) it can be difficult to maintain a balanced lifestyle, (including facing difficulty and holding passions or values). I know from example. When I decided to go vegetarian as part of a year 12 project, my parents didn't like it. I had a bowl of meat thrown in my face, and one of my parents demanded I eat it. I was trying to work on the school project (for three weeks) and it wasn't easy.

Luckily I was (over the age of consent), or who knows what my parents may have done, in terms of (a) my passion for vegetarianism and (b) my own freedom of choice? My parents still don't like the fact that I'm vegetarian and that change occurred over 10 years ago.

<<Most criticism is harsh, with no opportunity offered for balanced debate.>>

Even the unfairly labelled, "biased ABC" Media Watch program showed that those who do not support same sex marriage for example, had not received equal opportunity with 2015 media coverage, compared to those who support same sex marriage.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4295137.htm

<<What about now?>>

Why? A lot of your comments) don't use words like passion for example, but simply "criticise believers" or simply wish to state how "atheism isn’t a belief system."

Newspaper columnist Adam Lee says that it’s time for atheists to stop debating God's existence and decide what to do now, to move past theoretical questions about the existence of God and move onto more practical pursuits, like how to fight for justice.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/15/atheists-god-existence-social-justice

That is why I mentioned my sister volunteering at a local charity shop, run by a local church. The shop itself is large, sells a lot of items (very cheaply) and is very popular in the local community. A lot of people are benefiting, as a result. Comments based on hate benefit no-one.

My comments were in relation to an AJ Philips post.

<<As Lefty One mentioned briefly earlier, there are some parts of the united states where people still cannot tell anyone that they are atheists lest they be ostracised by the entire community. Where is your sympathy for them?>>

Personally, I haven't said anything rude or non sympathetic to any person on this topic. Sympathy, as much as possible, should be a two way street, as much as possible.

<<Then there’s Islam. I could go on and on and on.>>

Why? I don't see any point based on my previous post and comments made by Adam Lee, in his newspaper opinion piece.

nicknamenick,

Whenever possible, I try to give others the benefit of the doubt and grant that I mustn’t have made myself clear enough when someone is having trouble understanding me. In this case, I can’t.

As for emotive language: there’s emotive, and then there’s using words that others are too afraid to or don’t even think to because of the undue prestige and immunity religion has acquired itself.

--

NathanJ,

Not even the most vocal atheists are demanding that believers stop believing. Ironically, your analogy involving your vegetarianism and your parents’ response to it actually describes the way the religious behave towards atheists, not the other way around. Again, though, religion gets a free pass and you overlook that.

I hope you’re right about theists finding it more difficult nowadays to hold their values. Values that are purely religious usually go against the values of those held by modern, enlightened societies and have no rational basis.

You see, the goal is not to ban bad ideas like religion, it’s to promote enough rational thought so as to encourage those who hold bad ideas to abandon them, or to make those who'll cling to bad ideas too embarrassed to voice them. For example, the modern homophobe does not say that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, he asks what the government is doing in the marriage business; the modern chauvinist does not overtly control women, he expresses disappointment at the rate of abortions; the modern ant-vaxxer isn’t against vaccination, they’re just “asking questions”.

Finally, one important difference between your vegetarianism and religion, is that you are not harming anyone else or providing passive support to dangerous fundamentalists. So in that sense, your analogy doesn’t work.

As for “balanced debate”, I guess it’s like any other topic (e.g. vaccination, climate change, same-sex marriage): when theists find more evidence or reasoned argument in support for their beliefs, then they can have more air time.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Why? A lot of your comments) don't use words like passion for example, but simply "criticise believers"...>>

Why do I need to use words like “passion”? How would that change anything? My criticism of believers (or more specifically, their belief) has been justified. You need to address those before you criticise my criticism.

As for what this Adam Lee says, I would refer you (and him) back to my second and third paragraphs to you in this response. For so long as, “But it’s my faith”, is (as you demonstrate) perceived by many (even those with no religious belief) to be a valid argument, then highlighting the irrationality of religious belief will always be an inextricable part of the same goal.

<<That is why I mentioned my sister volunteering at a local charity shop, run by a local church ... A lot of people are benefiting.>>

That’s great. Although, I refer you back to my previous comments on charity yesterday that foresaw the fact that you were going to go there.

<<Comments based on hate benefit no-one.>>

I agree wholeheartedly. I’m not sure why you’re telling me this, though. Vocal atheists like myself justify their criticism with rational argument, which is something that people driven by hate tend not to do. Again, your words are more appropriate for the religious; but once again, you make exceptions for them.

<<Personally, I haven't said anything rude or non sympathetic to any person on this topic.>>

You don’t have to have. The fact that you overlook them is enough, and only serves to demonstrate what I’ve been saying about the undue privilege and immunity that religion has managed to acquire itself. Anything less than total control and zero criticism, and suddenly the poor dears are being attacked. Well, cry me a flippin' river. It's about time their unearned power and influence was tapered back a notch.

<<Why? I don't see any point based on my previous post and comments made by Adam Lee, in his newspaper opinion piece.>>

Well, hopefully you can see now after my response to his comments.