Defending outspoken atheism (page 2)

Narkissos

In principle it is quite possible to be outspoken without being aggressive. In practice, it is not always so simple (especially in America on this topic, apparently).

What I would question is the need to convince other people.

My personal cosmology may be objectively more accurate (even though it is certainly far from accurate) than that of a "flat-earth believer" in some remote tribe. But before trying to "convert" him/her to my view I might wonder, not only about the issue at hand (truth vs. error), but also about his/her circumstances. What will be gained, what will be lost, for him/her, in an eventual conversion to "truth"?

When you see people toiling and suffering under (what you think are) unnecessary burdens, you may feel compelled to help them out. But that is not so frequent, and even when this seems to be the case you might find out that they don't want your help.

nicolaou

The assertion that God exists is no different than an assertion that one doesn't

I couldn't disagree more strongly!

This argument has been had so many times, I just can't be arsed to go over it again.

serotonin_wraith

Narkissos, I've wondered about that too. In many cases it's taking away people's hope and comfort.

I came to the conclusion that false hope isn't good anyway, and that we shouldn't be scared of reality. It's the only way for our species to grow up.

Religion has lasted so long because people don't keep it to themselves. Even if they don't teach their beliefs in schools or get involved in politics, they very often will still indoctrinate their own children. As anyone raised as a JW will know, that's a danger in itself.

If a parent threatens to punch their child in the face if they're naughty, we call it mental abuse. If a parent tells their child they could die any day now or burn forever if they don't follow their religion, for some reason people think this is okay.

I'd love for our species to get over our petty differences and explore the galaxy- we're not going to get very far when so many people believe God made man 6,000 years ago out of dirt and that the evidence for evolution was planted by an invisible dragon.

Imagine what your thoughts would be to the tribe you described if they were fighting to get flat earth mythology taught to children, and that they'd already tricked their own into believing it.

Gopher

Well said - SW:

I came to the conclusion that false hope isn't good anyway, and that we shouldn't be scared of reality. It's the only way for our species to grow up.

"Grow" is the key word here. Children outgrow the idea of Santa Claus, and they normally outgrow the need to have their parents' guidance. What's also needed for fully functional adulthood the need to outgrow the need to lean on a "sky daddy" continually providing invisible guidance of some sort.

Once such dependence on the unseen and unprovable ceases, growth and rational discussion can begin, IMHO.

Especially if you believe in a God that is preached to you by a man or a religious organization -- once you accept their idea of God, they will tell you what that God wants and essentially then can control a part of your life.

journey-on

I believe in God, but my definition of what that is is different from what religion's is.

I have a lot of respect for science, but scientists are wrong much of the time. They

believed the Universe was eternal and had always existed up until about thirty years

ago when they "figured out" that it actually did have a Big Bang beginning. Perhaps

100 years from now they will have "figured out" that that isn't exactly right, that something

else occurred. Perhaps our mathematics and science has to evolve to get to that point.

I think your problem, Sero, as well as a lot of other atheists is that you have a bigger issue

with religion and its doctrines rather than the existence of God. Separate God from Religion

and you're not so rabid.

Narkissos

I don't know, sw.

I'm quite sensitive to the children argument -- in my own context, I definitely wouldn't want my child to receive any confessional indoctrination.

But otoh, whether we like the idea or not, children are delivered to the arbitrary -- and so often it is better for them to remain in a moderately "abusive" home than to be dragged to some other "clean" place which won't be their home.

As for the "tribe" hypothesis: if I could believe that the children there will be able to grow and live in their traditional society I wouldn't change a thing to their set of beliefs; I would move on and never mark their place on the map. If otoh they are bound to lose their own culture and join the global crowd of McDonald eaters and Coca-Cola drinkers, yes, "education" the Western way may be the lesser of two evils.

It's getting tough to have a good missionary conscience for any cause these days.

AuldSoul

The assertion that God exists is no different than an assertion that one doesn't
I couldn't disagree more strongly! This argument has been had so many times, I just can't be arsed to go over it again.

Nicolaou, in the specific context of whether it can be proven one way or the other, and despensing with the framework of the scientific method which would require proof of claims beyond singular, individual evidence, Para's comment is right on target.

Scientifically minded folks who don't want to believe in God say: "(1) The burden of proof rests on those making a claim. (2) You cannot prove a negative. (3) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We scientifically minded folks have made these rules and declared them correct. Therefore, based solely on these correct rules we have made, our claim that God doesn't exist, in the absence of contrary proof, is more correct than you religionists claiming that God does exist until proven otherwise."

Believers view even the premise quite differently, and insist that they have no need to prove the existence of a God beyond proving it to themselves. Personal experience is a type of evidence currently off-limits to objective sciences.

Both sides have proselytizers to their camp; the "outspoken atheists" would fit that category, as well, proselytizers seeking converts to the side of "reason" that they interpret to mean "agreement with our correct rules, within which paradigm God cannot possibly exist until scientifically proven otherwise". Anyone who doesn't agree with the correct rules is unreasonable.

I emphasize that side's perspective when writing to you for obvious reasons.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

Terry

I've come to see such questions in terms of what is lost and what is gained.

We build our lives on something rather than nothing.

We have relationships built on something rather than nothing.

We live in societies built on something rather than nothing.

All these foundations and all these networks rest on solid ground. But, solid ground may not be the best of all possible grounds.

On a faultline, even the most majestic cities can topple from a sudden jolt.

So too with human belief.

When we are Atheist we are a jolt. We shift at the faultline. We topple cities and ruin societies and split families into shards of despair.

Why?

What do we offer when we remove so much?

I'll give you a rather desperate analogy.

Japan.

Japan before WWII was a society. It was a feudal society of peasants and overlords. The emperor was god.

Two atomic bombs fell upon Japan. When the fallout settled there was the cataclysm of not only infrastructure, superstructure and political destruction to deal with. God was deposed! The entire basis of the feudal system was not even possible.

An American general, Douglas MacArthur entered the microcosm. Everything rebooted from rubble.

Today Japan is not feudal. It has a kind of inevitable prosperity, freedom and opulence which brings opportunities for good and bad which were entirely impossible before the bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Is the Japanese society today with its prosperity, freedom, productivity and technology a vastly better society to live in for young and old than the feudal overlord and the peasant who kow towed to the Emperor?

You cannot have Japan today without the total destructive cataclysm of the Atomic Bombs.

Such is the sort of diabolical set of alternatives one faces (admitedly on a much smaller scale) when one contemplates destroying the foundation of God and the feudal social system of religion.

Think about it.

Some people cannot/won't make it through to the prosperity and freedom.

Should the bomb of Atheism be dropped always or never or only sometimes?

nvrgnbk

Galileo Galilei was a heretic in his day.

He was also right.

Paralipomenon

Mind you, Japanese game shows should be enough for anyone to question the existence of a God that cares.

Defending outspoken atheism

Share this