Atheists - why?

Post Reply New Topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_%28psychology%29

Well, isn't it a little bit presumptuous to assume, when you are talking to me, an atheist, that your god actually exists? I don't think you actually realize how degrading this actually is to someone who has different beliefs or views on the subject.

Imagine a scenario where you were chanting your dinner blessing and some jerk were start saying, "who are you talking to?" let's try to grasp this scene in Shakespearean fashion:

Jerk: Who in the heck are you talking to?

You: I am praying to my goodly Christian Lord, so he may bless this repast.

Jerk: Well don't do that. It makes you sound weird.

You: But I am a Christian. This is a ritual that all Christians do before they eat.

Jerk: Then all Christians must be schizophrenic weirdoes who all go around talking to themselves.

Now, I bet that every atheist you have ever sat down to eat dinner with has remained politely silent while you blessed your food, including the ones who show up at your family reunion. When you act on the assumption that your god actually exists, most atheists who have any respect for others will usually bite their tongue and not say anything at all.

However, when you try to impose that assumption onto a conversation, it really gets under people's skin. Here is me and a religious person who happens to be an idiot.

Idiot: Why don't you believe in God?

Me: Because there is really no such thing.

Idiot: Well he believes in you!

Me: Right. Look buddy, I don't actually believe in this stuff, so would you go away?

Idiot: Ah, but don't you realize that you have everything to gain from believing in God and nothing to lose, yet you have nothing to gain from believing in God and everything to lose?

Me: I could assume that about just about anything. Really, I could take just about any belief at all and put the same statement on it, and it would have the same effect. This really isn't as convincing as you seem to think it is, buddy.

Idiot: I see. Well, just know that God loves you anyway!

Now, do you really not understand why this would make me want to punch that person squarely in the face? It's not really all that hard to put together. The way some evangelists talk to people is not only unconvincing, but it's condescending, overtly manipulative and incredibly rude.

Well, the problem is that these people are really so completely dense and non-receptive whatsoever to criticism that sometimes atheists will take their reaction to this behavior out on someone who just might understand why they are upset.

You can, actually. Just say to whatever atheist does this to you, "Dude, I'm sorry, but you really have the wrong guy. I didn't mean to make you feel uncomfortable."

It's easier than you think, man. Start with "I" language. Talk about your faith first, your religion second, your god third. To elaborate, this means you start out by overtly voicing the realization that not everybody has the same belief that you do. Then you maybe share some anecdotes about your experience with being a Christian or say some things about why you like your particular brand of Christianity better than others, exercising the humility to say bluntly and overtly that this part of your beliefs is subjective and a matter of your own inclinations and values. THEN maybe an atheist will be open to discussing God, which is the central topic, since by then you have adequately introduced and explained first yourself, the messenger, and then the broad topic of your religious practices and tenants.

If you keep it in that order, I give you my word as an American that the atheists you know will be a lot more civil with you. They will exercise a lot more open-mindedness. It might not make them want to join your particular church right there on the spot, but they will understand you and your beliefs a lot better and be less defensive.

And another thing, if you make it a contest between Christianity and atheism, you are really screwing your odds. Try bringing the fine distinctions between Catholicism and Protestantism into the topic. Now you have three competing players. Then maybe break Protestantism down into its different branches, and point out the fine nuances and why you might favor, in your personal opinon, one branch over the other. The atheist would look more highly upon you if he realized that you are a complex and thinking person, able to distinguish fine details and make evaluations of things. Be something a little more sophisticated than a "Christbot."

Oh, and why am I, an atheist, advising you on how to sway people to your belief system? Simple! It's not religion that object to. It's the presumptuousness and simple-mindedness of SOME of its evangelists that I really hate. God is just one of a hundred-million things that I don't believe exist, and this disbelief is in itself really not all that important to my personality. Without the arrogance of a handful of its adherents, it would be totally and absolutely inconsequential to me.

I see. So you're saying your beliefs and mine are equally valid.

BTW, so that everyone knows where I'm coming from on this, I was raised Catholic, became agnostic in later life, came near to atheism, and finally came to appreciate the Bible. I cannot stress what it has done for me.

I only recently became aware of my Asperger's symptoms, but knowledge of God has allowed me to overcome some of the more serious aspects of the disorder (ie. my "running thoughts" are not as stressful nor anxious as they once were).

I appreciate you sharing your POV. Let me explain mine.

I am a non-conformist Christian who came out of the Catholic Church. I spend much of my time on WP speaking with mainstream Christians about the similarities and differences in our beliefs. I respect their beliefs and hope that any of them would tell you that they could tell from my language that I do. I don't usually say things to atheists like "why don't you believe in God?" But, somehow, atheists on WP seem to think they need to add their opinions/insults to every religion conversation. To illustrate, my Shakespearean comedy would read like this:

ME: God is indeed great. He created all things and deserves our praise.

OTHER CHRISTIAN: That he does. Especially since he did it in only six days.

ME: Do you really believe God created everything in six days?

OC: Well, didn't he?

ME: You know, scientists think the earth is billions of years old. It seems likely that the universe is even older. I think those six days were symbolic of six epochs.

OC: No, Genesis says six days. That means six days.

ATHEIST: You're both morons. There is no God.

Hopefully, you can see why I posted this question. I agree that there are many religious people who are arrogant, foolish, even dangerous. However, there is room for humble, intelligent, logical people who believe in God and the Bible. All I ask is that you give the level of respect to everyone that they deserve as your fellow humans.

i agree with pretty much everything here
but the problem here is that it is a very personal issue to some people and they will take any opposition personally, no mater how well founded.
this goes both ways, there are plenty of ways to look at the bible that makes it a lot more plausible, not taking it too literally being one of them.
places where its philosophical value would lead to some pretty good discussion i believe.

the issue constantly comes down to "respect"
i wouldnt respect a religious person who wouldnt at least try to think about his faith in relation to the world around them.
i would respect a religious person willing to try to consider his own beliefs.

now one might say atheists should consider religion, but for me personally i chose not to be religious after i had to go to the priest for confirmation education.
even though me and the priest had some interesting conversations and i was engaged in what happened, i constantly though of it more as a philosophy than a religion,
sure christianity speaks of a god but to me that is all metaphor, nothing supernatural just a very good way of teaching certain things.
however it is also a way of bringin almost untold suffering and stagnation to a society if left to do as it wants, so as an institution i find religion to be a bringer of more sorrows than joy in the modern world.

^ This. Unfortunately, the bad examples of any belief tend to be the loudest, alas.

I'd like to point out that the one aspect in which i evangelize my lack of belief is on the point of, shall we say, hopeful atheism.

Imagine there is no invisible hand or cosmic mechanic altering the course of anything at all in this universe. No plan, no objective, no rationale.

It feels empty at first, but i came to realize that although humanity is certainly capable of great horror, many beasts of earth are capable of horror, and among them there are very few who are also capable of expressing beauty, amassing knowledge, and utilizing creativity.

If there is no other for mankind to abdicate responsibility to, that means not only that all calamaties not attributable to blind physical forces are attributable to man, but that all accomplishments are attributable to man alone.

If any good has been done, it has been done by man. And, frankly, we haven't even really been taking that job seriously for the last few thousand years.

Imagine what we can accomplish if we dispose of the idea that some things are outside of our reach, or that we have to wait for something outside of us before we can act.

Disagree and dissent. Commonsense epistemological practices suggest strongly that God cannot be wholly good, omnipotent, and omniscient, given that our basic sense on the workings of counter-factuals strongly suggests that God can do a better job. (Note: I say commonsense, and I say this because we don't rest commonsense on faith, we have it as a matter of basic intuitions.) Occam's razor tells us that if two explanatory frameworks have equal power, the simpler one is to be preferred. Atheism is ontologically simpler(it lacks a supernatural realm) but it is not clearly less powerful in terms of explanation, thus by Occam's razor(not a faith assumption) atheism is to be favored. Finally, most theisms have ongoing coherence problems. Coherence problems are problems with the internal consistency of doctrines, rejecting something incoherent isn't a matter of faith, just good practice.

For those 3 reasons, and countless more, I have to say that there are good answers, and they favor atheism.


Cartesian skepticism is an idiotic joke. Cartesian foundationalism can never get off the ground, as Descartes own evil genius idea makes indubitability quite dubitable. Frankly, as GE Moore showed with his "Here is a hand" example, we all start off with commonsense. We build from that, but pretending that we enter the game without already having a background of knowledge is just idiocy.


That doesn't mean the two are equally valid standpoints.

I have come to realise that Ignosticism fits my theological position very well. Not to be confused with agnosticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

WilliamLDelaney - if I have the name right -

it has been a long day in a hard week. I started reading your "how impolite to talk to me as if God exists" post. My eyes went blury and I skipped past even AHG - I will get to him another time - to the bottom.
It is possible - my eyes anf fatigue level would not let me be sure - that the whole is a joke. Possible not.

So I am just going to say:

People talk to me, they assume anthropocentric global warming exists, they assumr it banged lergely, they assume Obama brings hope, they assume James Joyce is a great author, they assume ballet is an art form, they assume Chomsky is a linguist. They assume a lot of things. Some I agree with. Some I disagree with. Some I am not sure. Some I do not even know WHAT they are saying - if they talked about Lapp dances [humor] I might comprehend.

POINT is - they do not ask if I agree, they do not ask if I comprehend, THEY know it, THEY are interested, and if they think at all they assume of COURSE I have to agree.

So if Alberta can just go on about reiki and Obamacare talking to me - without referencing my beliefs or awareness - why should I not talk as if God exists - especially since he does, just as you talk to me as if God does not exist - which to the best of your knowledge he doesnt't?

Heck, I'm probably weirder than most atheists. I know probably more than most people about Bible, though certainly not more than do most people who have undertaken to study it seriously. At the very least, I have enough context for it to be able to examine and critique how Jesus interprets the Old Testament in the Gospels.

As a hobby, I like to write fiction, and I enjoy writing about about both literal and figurative forms of metamophosis. At the begining of a story, a character might be a faithful but lax Presbyterian, and the character might be put into a situation in which he is given to believe that he has been chosen as a Tengri shaman. Why? This creates spiritual conflict. The character is forced to either choose between his Christian faith and his destiny or to somehow reconcile the two.

One of my great heroes is Martin Luther. He arguably helped set off the chain of events that brought us out of the dark ages. The Reformation and subsequent Counter-Reformation helped spur the exponential growth of science that we benefit from today.

On the other hand, there is simply no such thing as an immortal soul, and there is no such thing as a divine god. I may write about these things in stories, but I also write about dragons and sorcerers. A "spiritual experience" is nothing but an aura of the kind that often preludes a migraine or a seizure. I get them all the time, and sometimes I even hear beautiful music playing in the night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_%28symptom%29

And I may enjoy writing stories about spiritual journeys, but I also like to write about dragons and sorcery sometimes.

But I'm not going to make fun of someone who actually does believe in Christianity or Islam. If I am willing to defend people who believe in unicorns or think they can do "magick," I owe at least half that courtesy to people who observe more mainstream religions. I was not brought up to think it's okay to put down what other people do to try to make their lives full and meaningful.

And the main reason I myself don't adhere to any religion or spirituality is that I do not trust something that offers me easy answers or easy solutions. In fact, what finally turned me off for good on religion was this conversation:

non-demoninational Christian: I think it's interesting that someone would like snakes.

me: Well, I just think that snakes are alright, and I think the respectful thing to do if nobody else tries to be nice to someone, who otherwise has nothing apparently wrong with them, is to try to try to be the first to try to help them if, for example, they are stranded in the middle of the road. The snake might get frightened and bite, but the risk of that is worth trying to act with a sense of respect toward a creature that some people would want to cut to pieces for no reason except for being there. (I royally rephrased here because I was a teenager and a LOT more autistic then. And I had a serious stammer before I started the amantadine)

NDC: But don't you realize that the snake represents evil, and there is a spiritual war between good and evil? This is a war. God is on one side, and the people who are with the snake are on the other. You have to pick a side.

me: I'm not as ready to accept that. I like to question things. I like questions. They open doors. I find that the more detail I learn about something, the more it turns out there is to learn. I scratch the surface of an idea, and I find that, underneath the simple-looking skin, there is always more to see. More questions, more riddles.

NDC: But don't you realize that, when you come to God, all you have is answers? Imagine finding answers to all of those questions!

me: So what you are offering is an easy answer?

NDC: Yes.

me: A simple, final answer to life that really explains everything and makes it all clear?

NDC: Yes!

me: And all I have to do is accept Jesus?

NDC: YES!! !

me: I don't trust easy answers. Besides, I've been the one people thought was the "snake," and I've been treated like I was the Prince of Darkness when I was really just scared and confused. Go away.

And that, my friend, is the conversation that finally did in any doubt I had in my mind that I would be happiest with being an outright, unpretentious atheist. A lot has happened since then, but that's the exchange that really got the ball rolling.

But you know, if a Presbyterian had approached me, on the same day, and told me how following God was a great burden that some people are called to carry and given me a lecture on the value of duty and sacrifice, I would be a minister now. Being a pillar of strength for others, carrying out duties that nobody else really wants to do and befriending people who have nobody else to love them is what I'm inclined to do anyway, even though it sometimes causes me to come across as a condescending ass.

The lesson you should take home with you is simple: people don't want cheap faith. At least not the kind of people I think you should want to keep company with. Instead, look for people who might have been priests or shamans in a more merciful world, and try to speak to them. They are the people who don't want easy answers or promises, but they just want meaning. Something that feels honest. Nothing more, nothing else.

even if those belief cause harm to people?

i dont care what people believe if they do it with the same respect towards the world as they do to their religion.

Well, if you take that in the context of the rest of my post, I would think that it's self-explanatory. There really isn't an easy or simple way to answer that question, but I do think that people should be encouraged to follow a certain ethos in how they go about forming their beliefs. I think that people should scorn any belief system that offers quick or easy answers, and they should be wary of any belief system that inflames their passions to the point of losing their self-control, self-respect or respect toward others. I also tend to have more respect for belief systems that put a focus on concepts such as duty or honor.

In principle, though, I think that it's as mean-spirited to condemn or riducule another person's beliefs as it is to bully or degrade them in any other manner. It's like going to someone's wedding and interrupting the exchange of vows with a lecture on divorce statistics and details on how marriage impacts the male libido in the long-term. What you're saying might be accurate, but there is a time and a place for it.

oh i agree that ridicule in no way is the best answer.
you made a very good post and i think we share at least some views on the subject.

basically i like asking questions, probably should have added that the bottom line is a disclaimer and not meant as anything but my view.

i find that asking honst questions and getting honest answers is the best way of moving any discussion forward.

as for bullying and degrading, it has to be taken in context, i simply think some people are frustrated with the mindset of the "unquestioning" believers and the havoc they can cause.
they resort to ridicule because it has plagued humanity for centuries at least, at one point openly opposing main stream religion would mean death in some parts, interestingly enough these places have shifted all across the globe, with many different religions including many mainstrean ones.
not to speak of the isolation of "heretics" from society, it is a dangerous game of russian roulette with the whole of society at stake.

as previously stated i can easily encompass religion if it also show the same courtesy to the physical world.
as in i would value religion were it able to do this, i still think religion can do some good, but that good can as easily be done by a shaman that has lived in the desert as it can a priest of the christian faith.(as you put it)

Last edited by Oodain on 05 May 2011, 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

WWD: sorry I got the initial wrong, sorry I'm not up to typing it all out.

Your quoted conversation is pretty horrendous.

I have been privileged As I said somewhere. Interacted over the years with a lot of Christians. Not ONE ever said anything.

Closest I ever got - a guy on the next seat on a train - explaining to me - with very much the same level of je ne sais quoi as your Christian - how my life would changed if I jazzed up my costume, wore some big rings, etc.

There is a big diff, I would say, between unsolicited advice - which is rarely appropriate whatever the intention - and just talking. I am writing this now with the assumption that the space time continuum is not infinite, that languages are a pattern heavy feature of human culture poorly adapted for communication, that the sun will come up tomorrow, that I am sane and actually exist, and that God exists at least as much as I do.

These are things I assume, that inform my choices and words. I have no interest in convincing you of any of it. Not even that I exist.

BUT I do think you would find your world incredibly richer brighter if you just came to understand that languages are patterned human behavior. Can I convince you to join me in repeating the Linguist';s Affirmation??

This is a statement, not about religion, but about life. I am a pragmatist. If something functions, I accept it as useful. If it gives me results it becomes part of my tool chest for dealing with problems. There are no negative effects for not believing in the claims of religion. And I am rid of all the fantasy speculation religion carries as its standard very heavy luggage. History has clearly demonstrated that not only does religion not work, it makes people do terrible things to each other for no practical reason I can discern. It has produced nothing of value to me. I don't believe in atheism. I don't believe in anything that does not produce results. Atheism doesn't produce results. Religion doesn't produce results.I believe in stuff that is useful. It's really that simple.

at one point in history religion was probably usefull, (think before large civilizations)
it can serve as a powerfull binder in small groups and it serves as a powerfull educational tool(between generations), on good and bad.
i agree with your sentiment at large today though.