It’s nonsense for people with too much intellectual timidity to even tell people they’re agnostic.

Sure, abundant evidence - the evidence of having eaten both.

We shape our lives around many, many judgments for which there is either no good evidence, or for which the good evidence would be prohibitively difficult to gather.

And so that excuses every single conclusion reached by wishful thinking? That excuses, say, a public health policy based on teaching abstinence to high schoolers even though there’s no good evidence that it works, and abundant evidence that it does not?

This is not supernaturalism and wishful thinking; it is realism concerning the incredible complexity of the universe and the extremely limited ability of our tiny meat brains to order it rationally.

So the answer is to give up, and substitute supernaturalism and religion for skeptical inquiry into the natural world?

Sorry, I’m not willing to say that rationalism is worse because it’s hard to do. Sure, it’s a lot easier to simply leap to conclusions with no model testing. The fact that such leaps are nearly always wrong more than cancels out the advantage of easiness.

But most of us can’t live our lives via an exclusively scientific thinking modality (and even those who try end up having to rely a lot on assumptions and arbitrary preferences which have no evidence to back them up).

Every human being can live their life not believing things on the basis of no good evidence. Every human being can live a life that doesn’t depend on leaping to conclusions because its easier than supporting your views with evidence.

I’ve got no “good evidence” that rape is wrong

You actually have abundant evidence that it is, including the testimony of every victim of rape that it’s god-fucking-awful.

Am I complicit in fundamentalism if I decide to engage in only enthusiastically volunteered sex?

You give cover to fundamentalists when you pretend that conclusions reached by wishful thinking are every bit as good as the conclusions best supported by evidence. In that sense, yes, you’re complicit.

I’ve got no “good evidence” that rape is wrong or that I am obliged as a decent person to treat members of other races like human beings or any of a number of other things. Am I complicit in fundamentalism if I decide to engage in only enthusiastically volunteered sex? I don’t think so.

I would argue that you do, indeed, have good reasons to believe those things. You have an understanding of what you consider a “decent human being” to be, you have a desire to be a decent human being, and you have evidence that acting in certain ways would make you other than the “decent human being” that you want to be.

That others believe something actually is a pretty good reason to believe it yourself, as long as there is no better reason for believing the opposite. You probably haven’t personally verified that helium atoms have two protons, but, for various reasons, you accept the conclusions of those who say they have studied the issue. When it comes to religion, though, I disagree with the majority because I believe that religious beliefs (unlike “scientific” beliefs) did not arise from methods that lead to accurate beliefs, and that these beliefs are generally inconsistent with what I personally observe.

Ah, the rationalist extreme. I hope you have good evidence that those cherry Pop-Tarts you’re eating are better than the strawberry ones you passed up; otherwise, you’re complicit in the oppression.

We shape our lives around many, many judgments for which there is either no good evidence, or for which the good evidence would be prohibitively difficult to gather. This is not supernaturalism and wishful thinking; it is realism concerning the incredible complexity of the universe and the extremely limited ability of our tiny meat brains to order it rationally.

Evidence is great and so is scientific thinking. But most of us can’t live our lives via an exclusively scientific thinking modality (and even those who try end up having to rely a lot on assumptions and arbitrary preferences which have no evidence to back them up).

I’ve got no “good evidence” that rape is wrong or that I am obliged as a decent person to treat members of other races like human beings or any of a number of other things. Am I complicit in fundamentalism if I decide to engage in only enthusiastically volunteered sex? I don’t think so.

I don’t get why atheists feel the need to actively piss on people who aren’t involved in oppression.

Because you are actively involved in the oppression.

When you act like it’s ok to believe things on the basis of no good evidence - that supernaturalism and deluded wishful thinking are every bit as good, or better, as rational inquiry into the world around us - you’re providing cover to the fundamentalists who, essentially, have exactly the same beliefs as you, only they take them a lot more seriously and to their natural conclusion.

::applauds::

Because you are actively involved in the oppression.

When you act like it’s ok to believe things on the basis of no good evidence - that supernaturalism and deluded wishful thinking are every bit as good, or better, as rational inquiry into the world around us - you’re providing cover to the fundamentalists who, essentially, have exactly the same beliefs as you, only they take them a lot more seriously and to their natural conclusion.

You know, especially since people in non-mainline faiths are usually your biggest progressive allies against theocratic assholes.

Oh, yeah, some allies. It’s thanks to your “help” that we’re in the place we’re in, now.

The father in this case should drop her off at church on Sunday, pick her up, and have calm discussions of her beleifs and other people’s. As a 13 year old, she is old enough to know and express her own mind…even if he thinks that her mind has been “brainwashed” by her religion (and this is HER religion, not just her mother’s religion, at this point) he should listen and discuss the issues calmly, not dismissing her points, but raising his own.

Hey, don’t label people as atheists.. its a word that shouldn’t exist. My whole thing was anti-labeling, so that we can address each religious claim as it comes, instead of having a dozen different identities dueling on a grand scheme. That goes nowhere.

I’m against intellectual dishonesty in all its forms, and I think I made a persuasive argument for the elimination of these hundreds of fringe religions (which, as you were getting at, have no direct harm):

If you use one of these labels or identify with these groups, you’re essentially saying “we need superstition in our lives, but if I join a fringe religion/identity I’m on safer ground.”

The problem is belief. They are not all equally bad, but none of them are benign. Each one contributes to a general agreement that “faith/belief/religion is good,” and that is extremely counter-productive.

You’d rather be “right” than make friends. I don’t get that.

It’s true - at least, in internet discussions it is. Optimally I’ll make friends through being right.

I get calling out religions for enacting their bass akwards shit on the world, I get speaking out against theocratic dirtbags, I don’t get why atheists feel the need to actively piss on people who aren’t involved in oppression. You know, especially since people in non-mainline faiths are usually your biggest progressive allies against theocratic assholes.

You’d rather be “right” than make friends. I don’t get that.