Atheism

[SoulBiter]

Soulbiter,

How is the hard press from an evangelical Christian really saving someone? If the person they "convert" converts out of fear is their belief genuine enough to be true belief?

You are assuming that is the method. I don't see many of the 'You're going to Hell, boy" types anymore. Most Christians know that you speak the gospel and you live the gospel. Only God can change a persons heart.

[SerScot]

I prefer the method that says, "Preach the gospel always, when necessary, use words".

[Fist and Faith]

...But they spend alot of time stressing over my belief in a diety...is there some reason they feel like the HAVE to prove 'believers' wrong?

Same reason some people of faith feel the need to try and convert people, or talk about their faith all the time. They think they're saving them from themselves.

Actually its quite different. The believer is trying to save the atheist from going to Hell in the afterlife. Since the atheist doesn't believe in God, they probably don't believe in Hell, so they aren't saving the believer from anything. Except possibly having something larger than they are to believe in. Could be misery loves company

I think the atheists trying to convert theists are trying to save the theists from wasting their lives.

[Vraith]

Y'know how some people are always mad cuz they can only be religious in the "private" sphere, but not in the "public?"

The population is almost 3/4 Christian, the Gov't well above 90% Christian...so it's the same thing for atheists.

Except, for an atheist, it is real.

[Avatar]

Same reason some people of faith feel the need to try and convert people, or talk about their faith all the time. They think they're saving them from themselves.

Actually its quite different. The believer is trying to save the atheist from going to Hell in the afterlife. Since the atheist doesn't believe in God, they probably don't believe in Hell, so they aren't saving the believer from anything. Except possibly having something larger than they are to believe in. Could be misery loves company

I think the atheists trying to convert theists are trying to save the theists from wasting their lives.

What Fist said. Or to save them from enslavement to outmoded superstitions. Certainly the atheists don't think they're miserable or trying to make others so. They think they're trying to help. Just like the theists do.

--A

[SoulBiter]

Y'know how some people are always mad cuz they can only be religious in the "private" sphere, but not in the "public?"

The population is almost 3/4 Christian, the Gov't well above 90% Christian...so it's the same thing for atheists.

Except, for an atheist, it is real.

Wait... what???? Sorry my BS alarm was going off so loud I couldnt read the post.....

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

Feel free to be an atheist around me and anyone I know... you wouldn't see anyone treat you different.

Edited to add, take most of the above in the humor it was meant. I wasnt trying to be snarky.

[Avatar]

www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/10/burn-in- ... ats-hatred



--A

[aliantha]

It's funny until you realize those people were all serious.

[SoulBiter]

Some of those were obviously 'tongue in cheek'. "Get a rope" LOL from a Picante commercial.

But all that shows is that idiots are from all walks of society.

[SerScot]

Aliantha, Avatar,

I would call those folks Christians who really miss the point.

[aliantha]

Aliantha, Avatar,

I would call those folks Christians who really miss the point.

So would I.

[Avatar]

Pity they're louder and more obvious than the ones who don't.

--A

[SerScot]

Avatar,

And who's louder about their disbelief? Someone who quietly holds such or Dawkins and (before he passed) Hitchens?

[Cail]

And who's louder about their disbelief? Someone who quietly holds fo such or Dawkins and (before he passed) Hitchens?

Oh, but I do so love the evangelical atheists. They get so flummoxed when you point out that they're no different than the fundies.

[SerScot]

Cail,

Over the weekend I got into a long, tiring, debate with a guy at Westeros who was upset at the designation "New Atheist" or "Evangelical Atheist". He claimed that all Atheists were simply "Atheists" and that slapping modifiers like "New" or "Evangelical" to "Atheist" was disengenuous because nothing about "Atheism" changed. It was always, merely, a lack of belief in God or gods.

I pointed out that the modifier was noting the manner in which a particular Atheist engaged others. He called such a modifier, "Arbitrary" and compaired it to Atheists who like or dislike Pizza.

[Cail]

Over the weekend I got into a long, tiring, debate with a guy at Westeros who was upset at the designation "New Atheist" or "Evangelical Atheist". He claimed that all Atheists were simply "Atheists" and that slapping modifiers like "New" or "Evangelical" to "Atheist" was disengenuous because nothing about "Atheism" changed. It was always, merely, a lack of belief in God or gods.

I pointed out that the modifier was noting the manner in which a particular Atheist engaged others. He called such a modifier, "Arbitrary" and compaired it to Atheists who like or dislike Pizza.

Lol.....yeah they don't like it when you challenge their dogma.

[Orlion]

Cail,

Over the weekend I got into a long, tiring, debate with a guy at Westeros who was upset at the designation "New Atheist" or "Evangelical Atheist". He claimed that all Atheists were simply "Atheists" and that slapping modifiers like "New" or "Evangelical" to "Atheist" was disengenuous because nothing about "Atheism" changed. It was always, merely, a lack of belief in God or gods.

I pointed out that the modifier was noting the manner in which a particular Atheist engaged others. He called such a modifier, "Arbitrary" and compaired it to Atheists who like or dislike Pizza.

Sounds like the guy has blinders on.

[Cybrweez]

I think the atheists trying to convert theists are trying to save the theists from wasting their lives.

All they need is the evidence that this is the case. It would be hard to find.

But consistency would say they live based on what evidence they can see. I'm sure many atheists would think along those lines, w/o noticing the irony.

[Zarathustra]

I think the atheists trying to convert theists are trying to save the theists from wasting their lives.

I'm not sure "waste their lives" is accurate. If that were the case, atheists would also be campaigning against video games and reality TV with the same fervor.

The issue is reality and how we understand it. These are the deepest issues possible. There are some explanations of reality which take us farther away from the truth, and then some that bring us back to it. Atheists aren't as concerned with your individual "soul" as the effect that religious superstition has on our collective relationship with reality. Mankind doesn't live in the world, but in a holographic representation of it in his head. Because our interaction with reality is through this experiential filter--and this filter is crucially dependent upon our understanding, our ideas--it's vital that we get those ideas right. Otherwise, we're living in illusion.

And it is a collective illusion. We all affect it with our language and memes. We pass inexplicit content with every communication, context that include the rules (e.g. grammar) of that communication. So religious memes threaten our access to the world. They carry with them an entire set of beliefs/context/rules that are irrational, and thus teaches people to accept other kinds of irrational ideas.

Our very existence depends upon making the transition from irrational to rational meme replication, because this is the only kind of thinking that allows for sustained progress in knowledge. Sustained progress in knowledge is the only thing that will save us from an extinction level event that is *sure* to happen at some point (unlike Hell). And it is also what will enable us to have the powers of the gods. We don't need Heaven and Hell, they are real right here on earth. But a certain kind of thinking makes us forget this, leading to "damnation" rather than "salvation."

If you want to call this evangelism, fine. But to mistake ardor in one's beliefs and fervor in one's communication to be the same thing that religious fanatics are doing, you're missing the point. We're trying to spread criticism and falliblism, not dogma. Only a tradition of criticism and error correction produces progress in our explanations/knowledge. In all of human history, sustained progress of this type has only happened once, and we're living in its early stage. The significant difference between us and every other human who lived in misery for over 100,000 years isn't that we're smarter than them on average, or even individually, but rather a slight tipping in the balance people who stress rational/critical thinking over irrational/noncritical thinking. It reached a tipping point and caught on. But there are forces on the planet who push against it, and would see the balance tip the other way. Almost all of them are religious. Some of them have gained control of Iraq. Some of them want creationism taught in our schools.

Does this mean that religion can't coexist with reason? Well, it does so only by continuously ceded ground in its power to explain reality. As rational explanations take over what was once explained irrationally by religion--even replacing the greatest hopes of religion (e.g. powers of the Gods, immortality, etc.)--it will eventually replace religion entirely.

Atheists just want to speed up the process. We're the modern day prophets. This is what the future holds: unlimited human potential, with no need for myths, because we'll be the gods.

All they need is the evidence that this is the case. It would be hard to find.

But consistency would say they live based on what evidence they can see. I'm sure many atheists would think along those lines, w/o noticing the irony.

No, not evidence we can see. Consistency would imply that we live based on what we can explain. We can explain lots of things that we can't see, and such explanations entail existence. But god as an explanation for the universe is virtually useless, for it says nothing more than an infinite variety of alternate supernatural explanations. And it entails the end of explanation itself, because there can be no explanation for god. Therefore to accept it as an explanation is to accept also that it is inexplicable, which is the same as accepting no explanation at all.

[Cail]

I think the atheists trying to convert theists are trying to save the theists from wasting their lives.

I'm not sure "waste their lives" is accurate. If that were the case, atheists would also be campaigning against video games and reality TV with the same fervor.

The issue is reality and how we understand it. These are the deepest issues possible. There are some explanations of reality which take us farther away from the truth, and then some that bring us back to it. Atheists aren't as concerned with your individual "soul" as the effect that religious superstition has on our collective relationship with reality. Mankind doesn't live in the world, but in a holographic representation of it in his head. Because our interaction with reality is through this experiential filter--and this filter is crucially dependent upon our understanding, our ideas--it's vital that we get those ideas right. Otherwise, we're living in illusion.

And it is a collective illusion. We all affect it with our language and memes. We pass inexplicit content with every communication, context that include the rules (e.g. grammar) of that communication. So religious memes threaten our access to the world. They carry with them an entire set of beliefs/context/rules that are irrational, and thus teaches people to accept other kinds of irrational ideas.

Our very existence depends upon making the transition from irrational to rational meme replication, because this is the only kind of thinking that allows for sustained progress in knowledge. Sustained progress in knowledge is the only thing that will save us from an extinction level event that is *sure* to happen at some point (unlike Hell). And it is also what will enable us to have the powers of the gods. We don't need Heaven and Hell, they are real right here on earth. But a certain kind of thinking makes us forget this, leading to "damnation" rather than "salvation."

If you want to call this evangelism, fine. But to mistake ardor in one's beliefs and fervor in one's communication to be the same thing that religious fanatics are doing, you're missing the point. We're trying to spread criticism and falliblism, not dogma. Only a tradition of criticism and error correction produces progress in our explanations/knowledge. In all of human history, sustained progress of this type has only happened once, and we're living in its early stage. The significant difference between us and every other human who lived in misery for over 100,000 years isn't that we're smarter than them on average, or even individually, but rather a slight tipping in the balance people who stress rational/critical thinking over irrational/noncritical thinking. It reached a tipping point and caught on. But there are forces on the planet who push against it, and would see the balance tip the other way. Almost all of them are religious. Some of them have gained control of Iraq. Some of them want creationism taught in our schools.

Does this mean that religion can't coexist with reason? Well, it does so only by continuously ceded ground in its power to explain reality. As rational explanations take over what was once explained irrationally by religion--even replacing the greatest hopes of religion (e.g. powers of the Gods, immortality, etc.)--it will eventually replace religion entirely.

Atheists just want to speed up the process. We're the modern day prophets. This is what the future holds: unlimited human potential, with no need for myths, because we'll be the gods.

All they need is the evidence that this is the case. It would be hard to find.

But consistency would say they live based on what evidence they can see. I'm sure many atheists would think along those lines, w/o noticing the irony.

No, not evidence we can see. Consistency would imply that we live based on what we can explain. We can explain lots of things that we can't see, and such explanations entail existence. But god as an explanation for the universe is virtually useless, for it says nothing more than an infinite variety of alternate supernatural explanations. And it entails the end of explanation itself, because there can be no explanation for god. Therefore to accept it as an explanation is to accept also that it is inexplicable, which is the same as accepting no explanation at all.

And who's louder about their disbelief? Someone who quietly holds fo such or Dawkins and (before he passed) Hitchens?

Oh, but I do so love the evangelical atheists. They get so flummoxed when you point out that they're no different than the fundies.

Yup, just like this.

You're so sure that you're right that you discount any other possibility, and you do it with mildly offensive codewords like "superstition". Sorry dude, you know I've got nothing but respect for you, but when the topic turns to religion, you're like the anti-Rus.