NationStates

Please read entire post before replying. This is not written from either point of view, I am just curious to see what the consensus is. I would also prefer only serious responses, but have no jurisdiction to enforce such a request.

It is very clear that it is unacceptable, in this forum and in the world, for a believer of some religion to try to impose his views onto others who do not hold those same beliefs. My question is this: is it kosher (pun intended) for a nonbeliever to try to impose his views on a believer? Why or why not?

No, its the same thing. Exactly the same

Absolutely not. Flat out absolutely not acceptable. To be honest, evangelical atheists seem to be a lot ruder, a lot more arrogant, and a lot less willing to respect the beliefs of others than religious evangelicals. Maybe it's just the Dawkins effect, but other than Daniel Dennett I really don't see a lot of people that manage to make their points without being jerks.

Takaram wrote:No, its the same thing. Exactly the same

Vetalia wrote:Absolutely not. Flat out absolutely not acceptable. To be honest, evangelical atheists seem to be a lot ruder, a lot more arrogant, and a lot less willing to respect the beliefs of others than religious evangelicals. Maybe it's just the Dawkins effect, but other than Daniel Dennett I really don't see a lot of people that manage to make their points without being jerks.

Hear, hear!

Vetalia wrote:Absolutely not. Flat out absolutely not acceptable. To be honest, evangelical atheists seem to be a lot ruder, a lot more arrogant, and a lot less willing to respect the beliefs of others than religious evangelicals. Maybe it's just the Dawkins effect, but other than Daniel Dennett I really don't see a lot of people that manage to make their points without being jerks.

Though I wish it wasn't true, I'm afraid you are right. To be fair though, evangelical atheists get slammed a lot harder than any religious evangelical ever does (except by other atheists)

Absolutly not!

Vetalia wrote:Absolutely not. Flat out absolutely not acceptable. To be honest, evangelical atheists seem to be a lot ruder, a lot more arrogant, and a lot less willing to respect the beliefs of others than religious evangelicals. Maybe it's just the Dawkins effect, but other than Daniel Dennett I really don't see a lot of people that manage to make their points without being jerks.

I think a lot of ideas, whether religious or political or cultural, are like that. It has less to do with the beliefs themselves than with the motivations of the people following them.

I do agree that many atheists are just as arrogant and rude as many religious evangelicals, but that's probably just because atheism is growing as a belief nowadays more than it has in the past. Gradually, the dust will settle, and the arrogance of different beliefs will balance each other out.

Well, in some sense, those of us who believe in tolerance impose that view on people who don't.

Barfobulville wrote:It is very clear that it is unacceptable, in this forum and in the world, for a believer of some religion to try to impose his views onto others who do not hold those same beliefs. My question is this: is it kosher (pun intended) for a nonbeliever to try to impose his views on a believer? Why or why not?

this looks like weasel words to me. do you mean 'impose' in the sense of forcing people to give the outward signs of personally believing x on pain of punishment, or merely being occasionally subjected to arguments for x?

Free Soviets wrote:

Barfobulville wrote:It is very clear that it is unacceptable, in this forum and in the world, for a believer of some religion to try to impose his views onto others who do not hold those same beliefs. My question is this: is it kosher (pun intended) for a nonbeliever to try to impose his views on a believer? Why or why not?

this looks like weasel words to me. do you mean 'impose' in the sense of forcing people to give the outward signs of personally believing x on pain of punishment, or merely being occasionally subjected to arguments for x?

More towards the latter, but I suppose the former would also apply. However, I would say the answer given the former would be obvious to most serious debaters on either side of the issue.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:Well, in some sense, those of us who believe in tolerance impose that view on people who don't. ;)

I know! Why do the supposedly tolerant lack tolerance towards intolerant people? That's racism! Well, not racism exactly, but something ism! Something bad ism!

Vojvodina-Nihon wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote:Well, in some sense, those of us who believe in tolerance impose that view on people who don't.

I know! Why do the supposedly tolerant lack tolerance towards intolerant people? That's racism! Well, not racism exactly, but something ism! Something bad ism!

It's intolerance. Hypocrisy, too, but that's a less amusing answer.

Falsonia wrote:

Vojvodina-Nihon wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote:Well, in some sense, those of us who believe in tolerance impose that view on people who don't.

I know! Why do the supposedly tolerant lack tolerance towards intolerant people? That's racism! Well, not racism exactly, but something ism! Something bad ism!

It's intolerance. Hypocrisy, too, but that's a less amusing answer.

Well, if it is intolerance, why do you think that's bad? I thought your whole point was that you don't believe in tolerance.

Barfobulville wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:

Barfobulville wrote:It is very clear that it is unacceptable, in this forum and in the world, for a believer of some religion to try to impose his views onto others who do not hold those same beliefs. My question is this: is it kosher (pun intended) for a nonbeliever to try to impose his views on a believer? Why or why not?

this looks like weasel words to me. do you mean 'impose' in the sense of forcing people to give the outward signs of personally believing x on pain of punishment, or merely being occasionally subjected to arguments for x?

More towards the latter

then i completely disagree. if anything, there is a duty to 'impose' our beliefs on everyone who cares to enter into public discourse. and there is no foul in having that spill over into those who don't care to argue, either.

Barfobulville wrote:Well, if it is intolerance, why do you think that's bad? I thought your whole point was that you don't believe in tolerance.

...

Where do you get that from?

Falsonia wrote:

Barfobulville wrote:Well, if it is intolerance, why do you think that's bad? I thought your whole point was that you don't believe in tolerance.

...

Where do you get that from?

Sorry Falsonia, I was referring to the first fellow

Atheist have no right to impose their nonbeliefs on others. That's why I support teaching kids every theory of creation and them letting them decide. Its the only way to be fair to the children without imposing on them.

Barfobulville wrote:

Falsonia wrote:

Barfobulville wrote:Well, if it is intolerance, why do you think that's bad? I thought your whole point was that you don't believe in tolerance.

...

Where do you get that from?

Sorry Falsonia, I was referring to the first fellow

Ah. OK. Heh.

Free Soviets wrote:

Barfobulville wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:this looks like weasel words to me. do you mean 'impose' in the sense of forcing people to give the outward signs of personally believing x on pain of punishment, or merely being occasionally subjected to arguments for x?

More towards the latter

then i completely disagree. if anything, there is a duty to 'impose' our beliefs on everyone who cares to enter into public discourse. and there is no foul in having that spill over into those who don't care to argue, either.

what do you do when a Jehovah's Witness shows up at your door?

Free Soviets wrote:

Barfobulville wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:this looks like weasel words to me. do you mean 'impose' in the sense of forcing people to give the outward signs of personally believing x on pain of punishment, or merely being occasionally subjected to arguments for x?

More towards the latter

then i completely disagree. if anything, there is a duty to 'impose' our beliefs on everyone who cares to enter into public discourse. and there is no foul in having that spill over into those who don't care to argue, either.

That is the first time I have heard it put that way. Interesting

Soyut wrote:Atheist have no right to impose their nonbeliefs on others. That's why I support teaching kids every theory of creation and them letting them decide. Its the only way to be fair to the children without imposing on them.

You can't say somethings a theory if there is no evidence...

Bavin wrote:

Soyut wrote:Atheist have no right to impose their nonbeliefs on others. That's why I support teaching kids every theory of creation and them letting them decide. Its the only way to be fair to the children without imposing on them.

You can't say somethings a theory if there is no evidence...

The bible is evidence.

Barfobulville wrote:That is the first time I have heard it put that way. Interesting

Well, it's kind of the same as the Socratic method. Argument, when it's not merely a bunch of ad hominem attacks and insults the serve no purpose, leads to the betterment of all parties.

Soyut wrote:

Bavin wrote:

Soyut wrote:Atheist have no right to impose their nonbeliefs on others. That's why I support teaching kids every theory of creation and them letting them decide. Its the only way to be fair to the children without imposing on them.

You can't say somethings a theory if there is no evidence...

The bible is evidence.

It doesn't cite any sources. There's no bibliography in the back, either. I call foul.

Soyut wrote:

Bavin wrote:

Soyut wrote:Atheist have no right to impose their nonbeliefs on others. That's why I support teaching kids every theory of creation and them letting them decide. Its the only way to be fair to the children without imposing on them.

You can't say somethings a theory if there is no evidence...

The bible is evidence.

The Bible is an over 2000 year old book that contains innumerable logical fallacies, contradictions, and impossibilities.

EDIT: In addition to this, why do you consider the Christian version of creation, one that is not even shared by the entire religion, the only opposing "theory" to evolution that should be taught in schools?