Why do some atheists care that there are theists?

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]

These are good, but of course, none of these situations are inherent to religious belief. Would you still feel compelled to pursue this action if the theist held that coercion of any other human, even an unbeliever, was unjustifiable?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no escaping coercion in society. Society is a coercive force on its own.
Even a supposedly uncoercive society (anarchist--not to be confused with anarchy) is coercive, although minimally so.


As to the original poster, I don't bother to try to get people to change their minds. I've found most people to not be so open-minded as to seriously question their beliefs. And it's not that I truly blame them either. I think faith is required to function in life. "Everyone has to believe in something."

Even given my lack of proselytizing against religion, I have a problem with the Big 3 (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) because I consider them to be very divisive forces. Divisive forces can cause otherwise similar peoples to do all sorts of terrible things to each other in some cases and even in less dramatic cases prevent cooperation for mutual benefit. In fact, I beleive religion has been the most successfully used divisive force in human history leading to the greatest war, bloodshed, forced migration and misery. It's a great tool for those in power to manipulate his constituents to gain resources, power, influence, and a chance at a well-regarded legacy.

Religion in theory, even if it is wrong as Sklansky so often likes to point out (and my inner rationalist agress with him), strikes me as a very neutral and possibly even positive influence, giving people something in which to believe and providing a means of encouraging principles consistent with my own ethos (my personal favorite being the Golden Rule) that I think make society function better and produce a society more to my taste. It's not all about me, but I think the notion of universal or implicit morality is a fairy tale so I'm trying to be honest about it being what I like, not what is inherently good. I don't even really believe in inherent good, I just see action and consequence.

In practice, I think the big 3 religions have been a disaster even while they've encouraged other useful developments in human history (such as Christianity's involvement with economic development--see Max Weber). I'm not sure that humans in general can handle religion responsibly. I think religion is largely an excuse for people to act like they want to act and that it also strengthens inherent divisive notions that we have naturally (though these notions can be minimized or removed through education, training and self-discipline.

I also disagree with Sklansky insinuation that not assuaging bright people's attitudes on religion is an impediment to societal contribution worth considering (he mentions it so he obviously thought it was worth considering). People this bright would likely be using evidence (or lack thereof) to come to their conclusion anyway and would have found what they needed based on what's out there. And thinkers of this caliber should eventually be able to reconcile their lack of faith despite any lack of analysis in the public domain by other high profile thinkers. I see such people as being secure in their convictions even lacking reinforcement from intellectual heavyweights. The only thinker other than Sklansky that I'm aware says G-d probably doesn't exist was Tim Leary in his Death and Dying book. Before you rush to attack Leary for not being a thinker, I recommend you read a little more about his career or maybe a few of his 50 or so full length books.

In the religious realm, I disagree pretty strongly with David about one thing. He doesn't seem to realize that people can have irrational beliefs related to faith and still be rational about all other issues and correctly analyze other situations. The whole notion of being able to successfully hold an idealist belief along with rationalist/materialist beliefs seems lost on our poker theory guru. No offense intended Mr. Sklansky. A single irrationality or mistake need not imply one is irrational generally or makes mistakes about other matters. It's pretty obviously the fallacy of composition to assume otherwise. It might simply involve compartmentalized thinking.

There are plenty of other divisive forces such as nationalism, the racist construct that is "race," ethnic rivalries (which in some cases are largely regionalism) and scarcity of resources (often just a function of geography), but religion reigns supreme among them.

Despite how I feel, I don't really see the point in preaching (or counter-preaching if you will) because I feel that most people believe what they want to believe. I also don't consider my opinion especially influential. I like giving people options and encouraging informed decision-making. If I had a lot of influence, I'd probably push that idea rather than atheism. Since I'm agnostic, I guess that would mean that I was promoting what I thought, agnosticism.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
assuaging

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a fellow Mockingbird, Ben? The only time I have ever heard that word used (either in written form or by the spoken word) in my entire life has been in Harper Lee’s classic novel. (But then again, I live a sheltered life.)

RJT

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

However once they cross the line and tell me that the way they see the world means that I have a need to believe or am denying my desire to believe or somesuch nonsense,


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean you feel the need, I mean you have the need, as in lack. All are guilty, all need God's forgiveness, whether they know it, whether they feel it.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
So you are saying that if they didn't believe in God, these "good Christians" wouldn't give a [censored] about their neighbors? How encouraging. And how wrong. I suspect that those who want to help others don't need a God construct -- I seem to do just fine helping others without one, I would hope a good Christian could do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does seem odd that some people here are saying that if these people no longer believed in a God though, that they would suddenly start to embrace alternative lifestyles, birth control, abortion, and stem cell research.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

However once they cross the line and tell me that the way they see the world means that I have a need to believe or am denying my desire to believe or somesuch nonsense,


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean you feel the need, I mean you have the need, as in lack. All are guilty, all need God's forgiveness, whether they know it, whether they feel it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so you no longer claim that I need to believe in something bigger than myself to deal with past issues?

Do you claim I have reason to believe that your view on christianity is correct? or any other claim about me 'hardening my heart' to the truth?, or denying my beliefs?, or any other assertion about how I view the world in respect of god?

chez

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
"Don't you believe humanity's progress is being somewhat 'stunted' by allowing only 5% of the smart to "see the truth" while the rest of the "plebs" - who have the power to vote on important things like government policies (some regarding scientific advances) are "hoodwinked" by supposed ancient "myths"? "

It's a trade off and it's close. Especially for the next highest ten percent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe this top 15% should be only allowed the vote?

[David Sklansky]

"Do you believe this top 15% should be only allowed the vote?"

I am on record as advocating that the most qualified people, not necessarily the same 15% we are speaking of here, should be given two votes while the rest have one. This increases the chances of a good result (even by the standards of the one voters who would more likely vote for someone they would later admit was the wrong candidate) without giving them power to take over.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

I am on record as advocating that the most qualified people, not necessarily the same 15% we are speaking of here, should be given two votes while the rest have one. This increases the chances of a good result (even by the standards of the one voters who would more likely vote for someone they would later admit was the wrong candidate) without giving them power to take over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not wanting to read anything into your response that is not there, but if a certain "select" group are given double the votes of the "normal" group (ie- plebs) does that mean one "select" life is worth that of two plebs?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, so you no longer claim that I need to believe in something bigger than myself to deal with past issues?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember ever claiming that as to your feelings. You need God as do all, whether or not you feel it.

[ QUOTE ]

Do you claim I have reason to believe that your view on christianity is correct? or any other claim about me 'hardening my heart' to the truth?, or denying my beliefs?, or any other assertion about how I view the world in respect
of god?


[/ QUOTE ]

There are good reasons to believe Christianity is true whether you know them or not and whether you feel them or not. When you reject God you harden your heart towards him whether you feel it or not or know it or not.

[David Sklansky]

You are getting way too deep. I'm talking only about the ability to come to undebatable correct answers.

I have no problem with nice but stupid people. Unless they

1. Have the ability to become unstupid and make no attempt to do so

AND

2. Claim they are smart

Almost all stupid people do not fit that criteria. But it seems that most of those few who do, have registered on this website.