Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[redhawk23]

Tact will be necessary but I'd argue that honest discussion between family members is healthy and can be recommended. At the very least it gives everyone involved a chance to see the blindspots in their beliefs in arguments. It also gives people the chance to explain themselves and can promote understanding of differences.

 

[Schlosser85]

Some posters in this thread are every bit as dogmatic as the fundamentalist Christians they despise so much.

 

[redhawk23]

Because, as I say, I think of religion as involving belief in at least one deity. I don't think of a non-supernatural belief system as a religion. I think it's irrational to believe in deities. So therefore I am against religion.

Do you believe that every practice and belief you hold to is wholly rational?

 

[redhawk23]

Some posters in this thread are every bit as dogmatic as the fundamentalist Christians they despise so much.

Quoted for Truth.

 

[8wid]

Some posters in this thread are every bit as dogmatic as the fundamentalist Christians they despise so much.

Sometimes that's what it takes for a minority with such a little voice to even be heard on a planet that is majorly religious and closed-minded to different points of view. It's sort of as a pursuant as civil disobedience was to the Civil Rights movement.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I just don't understand why you don't. To not acknowledge the possibility of a god is like not acknowledging the impossibility of a god. I don't understand people who say it is not possible that there is not a god. For the same reason I don't understand you for saying it is not possible that there is a god.

I told you, I accept that my 'truth', which I only establish through my own thread of logic as i've explained it to you, and which has no actually proof - is technically a belief, just as believing fairies do not exist is technically a belief.

I really can't explain it to you any better than I have these last few pages. I mean I've specifically detailed every thought process that leads me to the conclusion there is no god, and i've done it coherently.

I understand that your hung up on the technicality of what is possible and impossible based on what we can proove... but due to the delicate nature of knowledge at all, based on the idea that the only thing we can technically KNOW is that we exist (I think, therefore I am), I choose to make my decisions on what it is fair to logically 'believe' based on experience, logic and the laws of nature.

Otherwise every time you say 'yeah but you can't proove that', you have to embrace the fact that you cannot KNOW anything at all.

And I just don't think that's neccesarily relevant when your talking about whether or not to live your life wondering whether God is watching.

It's perfectly okay to accept that you don't think he is, that you believe that there is no God/Gods.

I don't know why so many atheists are afraid of saying just that. It's like absolutes are avoided because they imply that the atheist has moved away from science and into belief... but a hell of a lot of what we accept on a day to day basis is a matter of belief in a sense, so why the big taboo?

 

[redhawk23]

Sometimes that's what it takes for a minority with such a little voice to even be heard on a planet that is majorly religious and closed-minded to different points of view. It's sort of as a pursuant as civil disobedience was to the Civil Rights movement.

It is for the most part counterproductive hypocrisy in any of their arguments. You can express yourself and fight an uphill battle but if your fighting against closed-minded it hardly helps to by tactless and closed-minded your self.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Tact will be necessary but I'd argue that honest discussion between family members is healthy and can be recommended. At the very least it gives everyone involved a chance to see the blindspots in their beliefs in arguments. It also gives people the chance to explain themselves and can promote understanding of differences.

Weirdly, in my experience, when I talk to someone who believes in God about my not believing in God, it actually makes them MORE sure.

Like the very idea of not having their belief scared them so much they are now even more appreciative that they have it.

It doesn't matter how logically you argue that life without God is not empty or meaningless, some people just aren't ready to let it go.

Any hole that letting go of the idea of God left in me, I've filled with all the beauty in the world, and all the love I've felt in my life. Cause that's enough to make me feel meaning.

 

[Dr.]

And that's precisely what I meant about logic being a contributor to my belief that no Gods exist.

Yeah, i'm still not getting you...

How does that negate what I said? You believe God is possible, I don't.

If I may… What you’re running into is a maneuver I’ve seen many times. There’s variation (and potential ambiguity) with terms like “belief” and “faith.” Now usually, it’s clear from the context whether the meaning should be interpreted as “religious” or simply as “firm conviction.” But many theists (or, in this case, philosophical/language pedants) seem to enjoy muddying the waters for rhetorical advantage.

Thus, a non-belief in god – because the statement contains the word “belief” - is taken to be analogous to a religious position. And if both views can be categorized as a type of “faith,” then they’re equally valid – or equally dismissible.

In a related area, some evolutionists counsel against saying “I believe in evolution.” Better: “I accept the evidence for…” And if someone asks about your “evolution beliefs,” you should always correct the phraseology so as to not fall into the “trap” being set. Now, I think this cedes too much of our colloquial language to the creationists and pedants. But one way or another, it’s useful to get the terminology clarified.

As in this adage, a reductio ad absurdum can sometimes clear the decks: “If atheism is a type of religion, then not collecting stamps is a type of hobby.”

 

[redhawk23]

It does often seem people are far more willing to twist your language than actually argue against what they are fully aware that you mean. That's not just this argument but pretty much any these days.

 

[Spider-Who?]

You'll notice I said challenge their beliefs, not convert them. I do want my brother to make his own decisions, that is why I have considered challenging his beliefs. Not to convert him, just to cause him to re-evaluate the beliefs that were assigned to him when he was too young to understand what was going on. Of course he can make his own decisions from there. He was indoctrinated at a young age. He lives a relatively sheltered life with my well-meaning Christian mother in a small conservative town in Kansas, where the nearest College has "Christian" right in the name. It's entirely possible that I am the only non-believer he knows, or may ever know.

If his faith makes him happy, why try to take that away from him? That seems oddly self serving to me. "I don't believe anymore, now I don't want him to either, so I'm not alone"

"Challenge their beliefs" is such a negative phrase. As you are certainly aware, everyday brings forth a type of challenge - people (if they're honest with themselves), question their beliefs regularly. Its normal and healthy. To think that people don't - and therefor you're more enlightened since you have- is false and will cause problems down the line between you and your family. But to try and put doubt in his mind isn't right, and appears more self serving than anything else. You - on your own - decided religion wasn't your thing, and now you're wanting to plant that seed in your brother. Let your brother grow and learn and think on his own. You did it. He can too. And when he decides what he wants to believe - regardless of what it is, you need to accept it.

 

[DBryan]

What's wrong with challenging it now? What's wrong with informing him now?

This is negative... why?

If for example a 25 year old believes in Santa, this should just go unchallenged?

Challenging people is a good thing. It's how we grow. This "let's not challenge each other's beliefs" idea is anti-intellectual. Why are people such fragile wimps that a new idea is something that we need to shy away from? If people can't handle being challenged on their beliefs then that is a very sad state of affairs.

How can we expect ANY progression, on an individual level and as a society, if we don't challenge our pre-conceptions?

LET people have their pre-conceptions, don't question it, don't question anything, if you don't want to grow.

 

[bgates87]

If his faith makes him happy, why try to take that away from him? That seems oddly self serving to me. "I don't believe anymore, now I don't want him to either, so I'm not alone"

"Challenge their beliefs" is such a negative phrase. As you are certainly aware, everyday brings forth a type of challenge - people (if they're honest with themselves), question their beliefs regularly. Its normal and healthy. To think that people don't - and therefor you're more enlightened since you have- is false and will cause problems down the line between you and your family. But to try and put doubt in his mind isn't right, and appears more self serving than anything else. You - on your own - decided religion wasn't your thing, and now you're wanting to plant that seed in your brother. Let your brother grow and learn and think on his own. You did it. He can too. And when he decides what he wants to believe - regardless of what it is, you need to accept it.

I thought the circumstances which I outlined in the post you have quoted made it clear that it is my concern he is in a situation where he does not have to question his beliefs on a regular basis, and is in fact encouraged not to.

You also make the assumption that his belief makes him happy. I would argue that his religious beliefs have in fact had a disastrous impact on his self-esteem. Surely you can see how believing your are inherently bad and attributing all good things you do to a divine being while taking no credit yourself could be damaging to your self-image.

 

[Sloth7d]

I say only bring up the issue if their beliefs lead them to do bigoted things or promote creationism being taught in schools. But generally, there should be nothing wrong with talking to your family about this. There should be nothing wrong about challenging your brothers beliefs either as that's just what siblings do anyway, though usually not religious beliefs, I guess. However, at the same time I don't KNOW your family. So I can't say how they'll react to you.

 

[Bat-Mite]

If his faith makes him happy, why try to take that away from him? That seems oddly self serving to me. "I don't believe anymore, now I don't want him to either, so I'm not alone"

"Challenge their beliefs" is such a negative phrase. As you are certainly aware, everyday brings forth a type of challenge - people (if they're honest with themselves), question their beliefs regularly. Its normal and healthy. To think that people don't - and therefor you're more enlightened since you have- is false and will cause problems down the line between you and your family. But to try and put doubt in his mind isn't right, and appears more self serving than anything else. You - on your own - decided religion wasn't your thing, and now you're wanting to plant that seed in your brother. Let your brother grow and learn and think on his own. You did it. He can too. And when he decides what he wants to believe - regardless of what it is, you need to accept it.

If someone was an atheist, had been an atheist his whole life, and his brother was a Christian and perceived that his brother was depressed and angry (whether this was actually true or not) because he didn't have Jesus in his life, would you be against that Christian trying to convert his brother? If you wouldn't be, you're a hypocrite.

bgates87 is just as concerned for his brother's well-being as the Christian in the example is, not only intellectually, but spiritually as well. If he realized that he could think critically about Christianity, he might prefer to be a Buddhist or a Daoist or maybe even a Hindu. Hell, maybe he'd be into Wicca or something. He either doesn't realize that those other options are available or is so indoctrinated that he thinks he'll be sent to hell if he dares to learn about them. Maybe he would even choose to stay a Christian, but would be one that is far more capable of critical thought. I know people who think that every time a rainbow pops up, it's God reminding people about a promise he made after the Great Flood. If I pull out my prism, I can force God to remind me whenever I want him to. This could be something as simple as BGates wanting his brother to realize that rainbows have a cause that has nothing to do with a magic man in the sky.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I thought the circumstances which I outlined in the post you have quoted made it clear that it is my concern he is in a situation where he does not have to question his beliefs on a regular basis, and is in fact encouraged not to.

You also make the assumption that his belief makes him happy. I would argue that his religious beliefs have in fact had a disastrous impact on his self-esteem. Surely you can see how believing your are inherently bad and attributing all good things you do to a divine being while taking no credit yourself could be damaging to your self-image.

First, I said IF his faith makes him happy – I assumed nothing in that regard. Though from personal experience, I admit that I’m coming from the mindset that a healthy outlook on faith is a GOOD thing. So IF someone is happy with their faith, I don’t get the desire to try and break them. His faith is his business, just like your lack of faith is yours.

Unlike what another poster tried to insinuate, I am not saying that healthy discussion isn’t good. In fact, I highly support healthy discussion to better understand one another and ourselves. But there’s quite a difference between healthy discussion and “challenging” someone, where one is positive (with the intent of learning/better understanding) and the other is negative (trying to break down the others belief). There’s also a big difference between QUESTIONING your faith and DOUBTING your faith.

If you want to TALK to your brother about his faith – so that you get a better understanding of each other, that is one thing. But if you’re looking to CHALLENGE him with the intent of getting him to renounce his faith, I don’t think that’s right. Nor does it promote a healthy relationship with each other as that could easily create animosity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it kinda seems like you have the view point that someone having faith is a bad thing. That's an untrue and unhealthy bias that can easily create a bad situation...You gotta be careful in how you talk to him.

Can you really say that you have no desire to make him changes his beliefs via your “challenging” him? Would you really be starting it with the pure and humble intent of helping each other better understand? Or do you want to go in with the thought “I have the answers, and I need to light his way?” You need to be supportive of each other. If he’s got poor self esteem due to his faith, then he’s really not getting the facts about his faith correctly…whether it’s due to his own misunderstanding or a poor preacher. IMO, it’s not the religion itself that’s the problem here.

There ARE things you can do to help him emotionally, but to better understand his faith, he should talk to your folks and/or a better preacher about it, someone knowledgeable in that area.

I dunno, that’s just my two cents.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

If I may… What you’re running into is a maneuver I’ve seen many times. There’s variation (and potential ambiguity) with terms like “belief” and “faith.” Now usually, it’s clear from the context whether the meaning should be interpreted as “religious” or simply as “firm conviction.” But many theists (or, in this case, philosophical/language pedants) seem to enjoy muddying the waters for rhetorical advantage.

Thus, a non-belief in god – because the statement contains the word “belief” - is taken to be analogous to a religious position. And if both views can be categorized as a type of “faith,” then they’re equally valid – or equally dismissible.

In a related area, some evolutionists counsel against saying “I believe in evolution.” Better: “I accept the evidence for…” And if someone asks about your “evolution beliefs,” you should always correct the phraseology so as to not fall into the “trap” being set. Now, I think this cedes too much of our colloquial language to the creationists and pedants. But one way or another, it’s useful to get the terminology clarified.

As in this adage, a reductio ad absurdum can sometimes clear the decks: “If atheism is a type of religion, then not collecting stamps is a type of hobby.”

Exactly.

That's what I meant when I said it's frustrating that some atheists feel they have to dance around the notion of no God for fear of being called a 'believer' or having some kind of faith of their own.

It's a ridiculous arguement by theists, or in this case pedantic people who simply seem to want to 'catch people out' in arguements like this.

 

[bgates87]

First, I said IF his faith makes him happy – I assumed nothing in that regard. Though from personal experience, I admit that I’m coming from the mindset that a healthy outlook on faith is a GOOD thing. So IF someone is happy with their faith, I don’t get the desire to try and break them. His faith is his business, just like your lack of faith is yours.

Unlike what another poster tried to insinuate, I am not saying that healthy discussion isn’t good. In fact, I highly support healthy discussion to better understand one another and ourselves. But there’s quite a difference between healthy discussion and “challenging” someone, where one is positive (with the intent of learning/better understanding) and the other is negative (trying to break down the others belief). There’s also a big difference between QUESTIONING your faith and DOUBTING your faith.

If you want to TALK to your brother about his faith – so that you get a better understanding of each other, that is one thing. But if you’re looking to CHALLENGE him with the intent of getting him to renounce his faith, I don’t think that’s right. Nor does it promote a healthy relationship with each other as that could easily create animosity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it kinda seems like you have the view point that someone having faith is a bad thing. That's an untrue and unhealthy bias that can easily create a bad situation...You gotta be careful in how you talk to him.

Can you really say that you have no desire to make him changes his beliefs via your “challenging” him? Would you really be starting it with the pure and humble intent of helping each other better understand? Or do you want to go in with the thought “I have the answers, and I need to light his way?” You need to be supportive of each other. If he’s got poor self esteem due to his faith, then he’s really not getting the facts about his faith correctly…whether it’s due to his own misunderstanding or a poor preacher. IMO, it’s not the religion itself that’s the problem here.

There ARE things you can do to help him emotionally, but to better understand his faith, he should talk to your folks and/or a better preacher about it, someone knowledgeable in that area.

I dunno, that’s just my two cents.

I assure you it is not my intention to proselytize. It would be quite arrogant of me to presume that I "had the answers," or was trying to "light his way." My only goal is to encourage him to objectively consider why he believes what he believes. I will concede I could have worded this better. Perhaps instead of saying I wish to challenge his beliefs, it would be more accurate to say that I wish for him to challenge his own beliefs. Of course he is always free to believe or not believe whatever he wants.

Also I'll agree with you regarding his self esteem to the extent that I don't believe his faith is the cause, just that it exacerbates the issue. It's likely he would still have self esteem issues regardless of his religious beliefs.

 

[8wid]

What does everyone think of the idea of requiring the taking of a world's religions class in university general education or at the high school level so students can be exposed to the different beliefs of various religions simply so they know about them and are not ignorant? This could be any reasonable length too.

 

[Lasirius]

I was reading my school paper and there was this article about the formation about the new Atheist Club. It just talked about how people haven't been violent or rude towards them due to the existence of the club.

I kept thinking, "What could they be talking about in that club?" I thought they don't believe in organized religion (though Atheism could be considered now a religion itself), so what is really there to discuss about?

 

[chaseter]

What does everyone think of the idea of requiring the taking of a world's religions class in university general education or at the high school level so students can be exposed to the different beliefs of various religions simply so they know about them and are not ignorant? This could be any reasonable length too.

That was basically Anthropology. We studied religions of the world. I know the five pillars of Islam

 

[bgates87]

I was reading my school paper and there was this article about the formation about the new Atheist Club. It just talked about how people haven't been violent or rude towards them due to the existence of the club.

I kept thinking, "What could they be talking about in that club?" I thought they don't believe in organized religion (though Atheism could be considered now a religion itself), so what is really there to discuss about?

I do not see how atheism could be considered a religion using even the most inclusive definitions of the terms. A religion is a set of beliefs, atheism is the lack of a belief. There is nothing an atheist is required to believe in order to be called an atheist, the only qualification is that they do not believe a god exists.

 

[bunk]

What does everyone think of the idea of requiring the taking of a world's religions class in university general education or at the high school level so students can be exposed to the different beliefs of various religions simply so they know about them and are not ignorant? This could be any reasonable length too.

There was some time spent in my freshman world history class going through some of that. There's so much to cover, you would need a separate class.

 

[SuperFerret]

I do not see how atheism could be considered a religion using even the most inclusive definitions of the terms. A religion is a set of beliefs, atheism is the lack of a belief. There is nothing an atheist is required to believe in order to be called an atheist, the only qualification is that they do not believe a god exists.

Yet... there's a club.

 

[DBryan]

What's your point?

There isn't a mandatory requirement to join this club if you're an atheist.

I imagine they discuss different ideas and how to approach atheism with the public.