Atheism: More Aggressive vs. Group, Less vs. Individuals

You should follow what you have faith in.

I support your opportunity to follow what you will, as I do any others that don't do harm in the following of their beliefs.

It is the American way. Not only have my American ancestors fought and died for this, and the other doctrines for which our nation brought forth a culture of acceptance and brotherhood modeled worldround, but I would fight and perchance unfortunately die in protecting your right.

In today's climate, I find that I cannot expect others to state their convictions, because they often are fashioned as vulnerabilities or liabilities, so I do not expect too many overtures of reciprocation in this respect. The modern mode of cynicism that too often deconstructs, without repair, the traditional faculties and institutions, is the prominent obstacle to what brotherhood I claim. So, alone, if I must, I would offer my services in defense of a primary American fundamental individual freedom.()

So, with my most humble blessing, proceed as you see fit.

HOWEVER, expect others to do the same, and to resolve this in a challenging discourse, AND when you admit to increasing intensity in your demoting of religion, especially before promoting atheism, do have faith in that others of opposing viewpoints will do the same, and follow what rationale you believe you must.

Good luck. I hope you expose the truths you need to.

-=T=-

()
This type of ingrained logic is not to seek a reason for violence, but to put to use what powers of defense I have, in my debt to the culture and nation I inherited. It is this same logic that long ago I applied to a similar supposition to one you proposed in an earlier post of yours,

“Imagine that one day God comes to earth and announces a new rule that says it’s a moral responsibility of all believers to kill anyone who doesn’t have a copy of your religion’s Holy book in his/her house.”

Long ago, I answered this in another way. I asked myself, in a conversation with others, if I could go to Hell to save someone else from having to, would I? And for what value would I exchange my proposed eternal damnation? 10,000 souls? 100? 1? A rapist/murderer?

Knowing that not killing others on earth, by not following 'god's' “command” would earn me a sentence to Hell, this follows in that line.

I would not kill, not on a hill, not from a window sill, not a man named Bill, even if I go to Hell(mispronounced).

ultimately, you will find that the authoritative factor in how people answer is in the environment that they've come from, where, foremost, they've either been told they “shall not kill” more than “follow god”, or vice versa. One instinctive command will outweigh the other, even in the face of conflict.

Humans, organic GIGO-droids though they may be from an deterministic perspective, also have the ability to choose against their programming. (Flip a coin; heads you believe me, tails you don't. Or roll 1xd10, odds I'm right.) I do this on a daily basis, with a range of severity of risk and reward, not to prove how “illogical” or “free” I can be, but in perfect exploration of my capacity and limitations in the universe.

And, if I ever believe that in making of mankind and the universe that god failed, I plan to improve on both in my version, if and when I have the time to get to making them. ;)

peace.

The facts are that God exists.

Read it and weep.

Definitely a worthy goal, but difficult because religionists take such ownership of their ideas and aren't accustomed to looking at them under a microscope. If they start getting defensive and give physical cues of distress and cognitive dissonance when you attack their ideas, then apologize and back-off. Also, rather than attacking “their” ideas, maybe frame it like, “I don't think I could believe that because…”. If they are open-mined, they will reflect on it and perhaps discuss. If they are closed-minded they won't be able to continue the conversation at all.

“I don't think I could believe that because…”

I think that this is precisely the right way to proceed.

“religionists take such ownership of their ideas”

This is called conviction, and it is entirely right and proper that they should take ownership. This type of conviction and ownership shouldn't be narrowed down to only religion, but must be put to use in daily life.

-=T=-

“Their assumptions and logic will still be wrong.”

Of course. My point is that you can't conclude that a conclusion is wrong because it was arrived at through faulty assumptions or faulty logic. (Not that I'm accusing Daniel of having the tendency to make this sort of leap.)

as for your ps. :P

Who said anything about proving a negative? To take a Harris example, if someone says during a job interview that they believe Elvis to be alive, they get punished. Perhaps not by open ridicule, as that wouldn't be appropriate, but they probably won't be hired.

And if you are out on the street you WOULD get laughed at for saying such things. So we don't have to prove negatives; we just need to treat highly specific, fantasy-based claims about the nature of reality with the respect they deserve–which is none.

Very nice.

The lore and myth are comingled with the other products bundled in the package of religion so much so that it seems to take a backseat, and even be the media by which others are delivered.

The primary products for modern religions are morality and communion. Knowing the lore in each faith is equal to knowing the rules of baseball, which puts everyone on a familiar playing field.

It isn't until you have faith healers and snake handlers that you understand where society DOES discredit and estrange the fringe sect from the fold. There is a dividing line between extremists and moderates.

-=T=-

I'd argue that your lottery example is precisely like my coin flip example and that NEITHER is anything like “a belief in a supernatural, personal deity with specific desires and intentions”. My point was merely that BY ITSELF the process used to arrive at a conclusion does not make the conclusion false. I'll be more explicit (no .. I was explicit before .. I'll be more DIRECT): To PROVE a conclusion wrong, you need to look at more than the process used to arrive at it.

If we're just talking about how much you would RELY on that conclusion, then the process has relevance.

You are incorrect to say that lottery numbers are just wrong if someone comes up with them in a dream. I believe that you would be right to say that they are not more likely to be right then random chance says they are, but this probability is not zero. People who have based their number choices on hunches have won. Does this mean that we should rely on their hunches? Not at all. Don't read more into what I am saying than what I am actually saying.

I'm not in the camp with those who think the best defense is a good offense. To disregard others' beliefs by ridicule doesn't quite work. Another commenter mentioned that many believers take ownership of their religious faith, with good reason, so ridiculing what they take to be true (provable or not) just turns into an insult. I think that trying to have a meaningful conversation with someone you just mocked is a tough thing to pull off.

The better mode I've found in dealing with theists (I am a humanist, I suppose) is to offer an alternative. If they say, 'Look at Bach, he was inspired by God and his Lutheran faith, how can you disregard it then?' Instead of saying, 'He was misled and out of his mind,' I prefer to reply with, 'If he you see him as just a man as I do, it's all the more proof of what good and amazing things humans can do on their own.'

If theists are used to reaching into empty air and thinking they grasped something, then it's tougher to be brought back to reality when told, look you fool your hand is empty. Put something else there instead so at least they're grabbing at something.

I apologize if I'm not writing clearly; I'm writing this while bleary-eyed at work this morning.

“I prefer to reply with, 'If he you see him as just a man as I do, it's all the more proof of what good and amazing things humans can do on their own.'”

That is truely an all too rare but deeply refreshing perspective that comments on humanity's works and refocuses on mankind's capability. Most deservedly, thank you.

-=T=-

Why do atheists seem to need to evangelize just as much as the theists? Are you feeling a little insecure with having just as much proof as the other guy?

If you want to declare someone wrong in the scientific sense, don't you require valid scientific evidence to the contrary?