An ad hominem, yes kinda. Personal attack? Offensive? Doesn't matter. What I said is true regardless of how offensive it might sound.An Ad hominem fallacy. Please refrain from using these types of "arguments", they are personal attacks and quite ofensive (much more so than the "generalizations" i was accused of).I have also observed that you are looking things from the inner perspective (from behind the religious goggles), while I'm looking at what's actually happening on the surface.
See, my overall goal here isn't to prove or disprove anyone's personal beliefs. My only goal when discussing with religious people is making them question their own way of thinking.
Yes. Atheism is not a neutral perspective because it's not a perspective. It's only a word describing the lack of belief in deities. Since when was a lack of anything called a perspective?Atheism is not a neutral perspective. It is a fixed position: something that if hold onto as a belief, will subject you to a lot of premises. And if you do value the perspective from someone that has "switched sides" before, i will let you know that for about 3 years in my life i have defined myself as an atheist. Therefore i have seen the world from the perspective of an atheist and really, that is exactly why i think atheism is basically a sheer negation of almost everything around us (our reality and the way it presents itself to us) in a huge effort to support the preconceived view that everything is of a "purely mechanical" nature. Mathemathics, albeit clearly present in the workings of our universe, is by itself "inert" in the sense that it cannot produce our reality alone. Therefore, it is NOT alone.
But I guess you meant to say something like;"atheists perspective is not a neutral perspective". Still irrelevant.
There are people with various perspectives, whether the person is an atheist or a theist, some people's perspectives being more neutral than the others.
That being said; Atheists are generally more neutral than the theist counterpart. Why? Because ultimately the only thing hindering most of us atheists from believing in any of your religious peoples claims is; evidence. Anything goes, as long as it's actual evidence and not feelings, preaching and pseudo "evidence" that there are already countless of, like the below;
And no, theists are definitely not more neutral when it comes to topics like this. Why again? Because all theists side with their own religious beliefs.There were 12 apostles. All of them claimed to have witnessed Jesus performing many miracles, and they were with him basically the entire time during his ministry on earth (and for 40 days after he rose from the dead). That being said, all 12 apostles died in horrific ways exactly because of their faiths and all of them maintained to the very end that the teachings of Jesus were indeed true. If they were lieing, wouldn't at least one of them have admited to it before the prospect of death for their faiths?
Every single deeply religious person looks at the world from behind the religious goggles, or should I simply say; Their own beliefs influence how they see and think of everything. (Yes, they are synonyms in this context). You could say the same about atheists, but again, most atheists are not atheists because they started believing in science, but because they questioned their own beliefs and found logical inconsistencies in their own beliefs, therefore they are not fully comparable in this context.
The only ones getting to call their perspective truly neutral when it comes to the topic of religion, are people who don't affiliate with them, or; people who don't view the world from behind their own beliefs. Yes, out of the two, atheists fit into this category far better, though there definitely are those who stray far from it.
That is true for some religious people, such as those who convert themselves. Converts are insignificant though, because their numbers are less than one percentile.You are talking about the genesis of religion as being purely the result of indoctrination, but this is not the case really. There are actually two ways through which people may come to believe in something: one is by having personal experiences and the other is by believing that the experiences others around us have reported may indeed be true........
Also, what you are arguing in this context is; how majority of the religious people KEEP believing in their beliefs, not how they actually became religious.
It is an obvious fact, which I have already pointed out many times, that indoctrination is the cause of this. Maybe I should simplify myself?;
Denying this simple yet true observation is just pure ignorance in my opinion.- Muslims are muslims because they were born in muslim society. Hindus are hindus because they were born in hindu society. Christians are christians because they were born in christian society.
- Indoctrination is the reason they become religious in these societies.
- Their experiences are what's keeping all of them in their current beliefs.
Whatever you say to the above, I'm just done with it. I ain't gonna be pointing out the obvious again, so let's instead talk about your beliefs:
How do you explain all the imperfections in your bible? Reasonably and with what you believe is your gods message, in mind?
Before you answer, I suggest to open up your mind even further by watching this video from Matt Dillahunty;
Don't just skim through it. Watch and understand it, then present your argument.