Atheism

@Setanta,

Quote:

This is what i was thinking

Really!? Your posts say something way different.

Set's brand spanking new new year's resolution:

to just ignore them, which i will try to do from now on.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Spendius...

spendius wrote:

I know from experience that many atheists do not restrict themselves in conversations to going on and on about the conversation being about nothing else than the subject of expressing what it is like to be an atheist without ever once attempting to describe what it is like to be an atheist. We might go on forever in such a futile vein....

Indeed we might. Actually, you are one of the few theists in this thread who ever says anything remotely interesting. I'd like to quote a question you asked earlier and respond to it if I may. Because it's a question I think atheists need to ask themselves.

Quote:

Kant was adamant that a preacher must allow that he will persuade everybody before he preaches. And then to decide whether to preach or not....
Is [Spendi's nemesis] confident we will be better off if he wins the argument and 308 million atheists are running loose where you are? ...There is no law which says the process has to be gradual.

Well, I don't think Kant was really all that practical. Of course I'm not going to convert all of America to atheism just by admitting I am an unbeliever. And if atheists were collectively able to do that, the process would be gradual, although no law except common sense dictates that it would. The god delusion is too powerful to disappear overnight; people like the promise of immortality.

Nevertheless, it has occurred to me to be cautious about "curing" theists, since few people can handle godlessness without replacing their current religious idols with either crass ones or authoritarian ones. You make a good point elsewhere, I think, that our religions grew up in symbiosis with our cultures.

Atheists face a dilemma when deciding how to interact with the rest of the world. If we remain completely silent about our beliefs, then we risk allowing dogmatic religious views to take over society. Yet, if we try too hard to convince people that gods don't exist, then we risk leaving people with nothing to believe in, and from that point they may degenerate into lowlifes, or they may become fascists. How to split the difference: it's a moral question, and for me an open one.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Yeah, I definitely think there are a couple questions youngish atheists (like myself) ought to ask themselves about the best way to get on in the world, feeling as they do, intuitively, that god does not exist.

1. Spendius's question for socially minded atheists, which I unfortunately seem to have chopped to pieces in my previous post, was:

spendius wrote:

Kant was adamant that a preacher must allow that he will persuade everybody before he preaches. And then to decide whether to preach or not. It's impossible to disagree with that unless in a system which encourages minority viewpoints to be expressed vehemently as a form of social control. A system which can absorb them because they all cancel each other out.

I will preach, for example, that people should be careful about the amount of saturated fat they consume. Particularly adult men. I am in favour of everybody being persuaded to agree. I'm confident they will be better off by being persuaded.

Is Setanta confident we will be better off if he wins the argument and 308 million atheists are running loose where you are? People have admitted that they converted to atheism in an instant. Ricky Gervais for one. ( A very unfunny gentleman in my opinion.) There is no law which says the process has to be gradual.

So the question to ask ourselves is as follows: should we badger people about how heaven's fake, or is society better off deceiving itself on the matter? Before coming here (a2k) I admit I subscribed to the "ignorance is bliss" philosophy, but I have read much here that has altered my views.

2. My own question, perhaps more relevant to this thread about atheist survival strategies, is:

What are A2Kers views on religious hypocrisy--pretending to believe when one does not? Aside from the practical advantages it offers, there are moral justifications for it. For one thing, if the majority of one's country is religious, a person can have more sway by professing belief. If we, the atheists of the world, understand more about ethics and metaphysics than the holy rollers do, don't we actually have a responsibility to infiltrate churches, in order to lead people towards more rational notions of virtue in any way we can? What is dogma after all but a set of rules one can learn to play by?

Thanks,
Oylok

0 Replies

@Oylok,

What are A2Kers views on religious hypocrisy--pretending to believe when one does not? Aside from the practical advantages it offers, there are moral justifications for it. For one thing, if the majority of one's country is religious, a person can have more sway by professing belief. If we, the atheists of the world, understand more about ethics and metaphysics than the holy rollers do, don't we actually have a responsibility to infiltrate churches, in order to lead people towards more rational notions of virtue in any way we can? What is dogma after all but a set of rules one can learn to play by?

Sorry, I linked to your post too early.

Back in a bit.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

"What are A2Kers views on religious hypocrisy--pretending to believe when one does not?"

Some of us did that early on, to get along, when even then we had mixed views at the time. We grew up.

"Aside from the practical advantages it offers, there are moral justifications for it."
Moral justifications for fibbing and infiltrating? This isn't even cute.

"For one thing, if the majority of one's country is religious, a person can have more sway by professing belief. If we, the atheists of the world, understand more about ethics and metaphysics than the holy rollers do, don't we actually have a responsibility to infiltrate churches, in order to lead people towards more rational notions of virtue in any way we can? What is dogma after all but a set of rules one can learn to play by?"

No, this is verily stupid. Infiltrate churches? Please, no.

0 Replies

How many people here even think on a day to day basis about this topic? Do any of you spend any time thinking about atheism, or about the influence of religion in your homeland? For my part, if it weren't for this site, i'd likely go from one day to the next without a thought for religion. I tend to think of people who rail against religion as militant atheists, and that's just not me.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Good post boss. You put things in perspective. The fact is, apart from discussions on a2k I don't think about it much.
I do think about the paranoia my religious friends exhibit when talking about atheists trying to take the religion out of Christmas.
What were those figures again? 75 to 82 % believe in a Christian God? Some of these must have helped take the Christ out of Christmas.

0 Replies

If nobody pushes me on the religion question, I maintain silence. Even then they have to push pretty persistently to get anything out of me.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I find myself more often lately defending religion, not as a change in my beliefs but as feeling defensive and a bit protective of believers. I think there are some damn fine folks, humanitarian folks, fine and thoughtful folks who also happen to be religious. I operate on the assumption that those who respect my beliefs deserve the same in kind. sometimes that works out, sometimes it don't.

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

Sure. I have always defended religion when it is unfairly attacked, except occasionally on a2k, when engaged with someone as dumb and stubborn as myself. I have said, repeatedly, that some of the best persons I have known adhere to established religion.

0 Replies

But I don't come to this thread to speak to the religious. If they feel threatened by anything in here, it's not my fault.

0 Replies

I want to threaten 'em . . . the next one a them god botherers comes near me is gonna get a big handful of electrons . . . right in the face!

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I want to threaten 'em . . . the next one a them god botherers comes near me is gonna get a big handful of electrons . . . right in the face!

You shall incur the wrath of - - -

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

...the god that's never been proven to exist.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

Here's the thing, Dyslexia. You write that:

Quote:

I think there are some damn fine folks, humanitarian folks, fine and thoughtful folks who also happen to be religious.

I think that one of the best places to meet those "damn fine folks" (and to get their metaphysical and ethical views) is at church. Now at the moment, going to their churches would require a little bluffing on my part, because I know from experience that at some churches there is always a kind of "Q&A session" between the priest or pastor and his/her parish. During that Q&A period, where the priest asks the congregation what it believes, I would have to "fib" and say "I believe in the Almighty, the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth, etc., etc." Now, since, as an atheist, I do not actually believe in the Almighty, what I said during that Q&A session would technically constitute "religious hypocrisy", right?

Now when I wrote earlier about "infiltrating churches", here was the idea behind it: throughout history (Setanta will no doubt correct me if I am wrong) the "doubting Thomases" of the world have always been an integral part of theological discussions. Back in the old days, atheists had to keep their doubting natures a secret. They attended church; they played the game; they probably chimed in every once in a while about what was moral and what was not. These days, we atheists just sit at home and rant on the Internet about how "God is not real". Wouldn't our scepticism serve a higher purpose if we attended their sermons and afterwards took part in the discussion about what those sermons about the best way to live meant? As it is, we are sidelined, and I don't feel that that bests serves the interests of humanity.

2 Replies

@Oylok,

Quote:

Wouldn't our scepticism serve a higher purpose...

I mean, perhaps sceptics like ourselves have a role to play in religion after all--balancing out the fanatics, with the moderates hovering somewhere in the middle.

0 Replies

Wouldn't our scepticism serve a higher purpose if we attended their sermons and afterwards took part in the discussion about what those sermons about the best way to live meant?

No.

0 Replies

@Oylok,

Oylok wrote:

Here's the thing, Dyslexia. You write that:

Quote:
I think there are some damn fine folks, humanitarian folks, fine and thoughtful folks who also happen to be religious.

I think that one of the best places to meet those "damn fine folks" (and to get their metaphysical and ethical views) is at church. Now at the moment, going to their churches would require a little bluffing on my part, because I know from experience that at some churches there is always a kind of "Q&A session" between the priest or pastor and his/her parish. During that Q&A period, where the priest asks the congregation what it believes, I would have to "fib" and say "I believe in the Almighty, the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth, etc., etc." Now, since, as an atheist, I do not actually believe in the Almighty, what I said during that Q&A session would technically constitute "religious hypocrisy", right?

What churches would that be? I have never seen such a thing in any church I have ever been in. Nor, do I think it is proper for the Pastor, or anybody else, to question the believe of anybody who attends a service.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Sounds like this church only exists in someone's imagination.

A "Q & A session"?

2 Replies

@snood,

It's something I've only heard of when trying to book a church for a wedding or christening - it doesn't seem outrageous to me that a priest would ask that sort of thing in that case.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know