Now that’s an interesting response.
Which of the two would like you to prove?
I’m all eyes.
And you get this week’s snark award!
The odds of you arguing her out of believing in God are virtually zero, while the odds of those arguments driving a wedge between you are very high. That’s reason enough not to bother, I think. She’d be wrong to evangelize and try to save you from Hell, and provided she isn’t hurting anyone, you’d be the same try to to save her from Ignorance. She’s given you some respect, even if she has given it grudgingly. You should do the same and let her lead her life the way she wants to even if she’s misinformed about some things.
“Fighting Ignorance” is a great slogan, but it’s a difficult metaphor and not always appropriate. Ignorance isn’t our enemy: in order to learn something, you have to be ignorant first. People who lack knowledge don’t deserve scorn (giving a wide berth of exceptions for people who make their ignorance a problem for everyone else). This is one case where the “fighting” metaphor is definitely inappropriate. You don’t want to fight your mom. She hasn’t done anything to deserve it.
The best thing you can do is fight about it as little as possible. There is a conflict between you that will be cured (I hope) by time, and little else. Live and let live is about all you can do and all you should do.
The position that there is no evidence of God requires no proof. It is the assertion that there is a God that require proof. If, on the other hand, one takes the position that there could not be a God it creates a burden equal to those who promote the God thesis.
Being all eyes does crowd out one’s skull of room for other useful organs.
Devil’s advocate: Actually, there is MORE reason to believe in Bigfoot than God. At least Bigfoot doesn’t violate any natural laws. 
And yet, sadly, they do. I suppose it is not to hard to imagine why they do, considering all that is at stake for believers faced with the horrifying prospect of living a life without comforting fantasies of eternal bliss. It is the thought of contributing to the destruction of those fantasies infecting his mother that the OP is grappling with, I think.
This is one more example of how most religions go beyond the merely absurd, irrational, and irritating and into evil. Among other atrocities, the Big Lie forces 17 year-olds to choose between making a parent very uncomfortable, sad and fearful or standing by while they live a life based on primitive, superstitious mumbo-jumbo and false hope. Religion puts some in the horrible position of going along with a loved-one’s delusions–saying nothing because they can’t bear to bring despair to the deluded. I don’t think I could do that to my mother either (if she were unfortunate enough to believe in myth as reality.)
Anyway, your point is well taken. Religious beliefs SHOULDN’T get special dispensation from rational thought. That is the monumental battle facing civilization. More important that confronting Global Warming, that’s for sure, but both need to be attended to pronto.
In the case of eliminating superstition from day-to-day discourse, public policy and every other thing it has its scaly, demonic, pus-oozing, tentacles wrapped around I’m afraid it will come down to much bloodshed. I just hope the so-called "moderate and “liberal” religionists see the light soon (within 200 years would be nice) and withdraw their tacit support from the dangerous fundamentalists.
Isolating those who would have others lives controlled by primitive, draconian, might-makes-right fairy tales is the first big step towards freeing humanity from the shackles of destructive religion.
Oh-- by the way… I’m actually not the Antichrist. It’s two 6’s and a 9. I’m bluffing.
(courtesy: Bill Hicks)
In case it wasn’t clear in my ranting my advice to the OP would be like most of the other suggestions in here. It is not worth the trouble or heartache it would cause if you were to become confrontational with your mother over this unless she is in same danger of harming herself.
This pox needs to be battled on a world-wide basis. It needn’t be an issue to come between you and your mother.
and about this little tidbit, raindog–
Just because those simple and absurdist, yet logically utterly compelling arguments piss you off does not make them juvenile–whether you are an atheist or not.
The argument you refer to is about as tired as the argument for gravity or evolution. The argument might have been around a while, but i can’t see any way to refute it. Unless of course you have some evidence of Bigfoot. Or God.
And–you don’t need to post the entire OP to respond to it. You know that. right?
Quite the hard question to answer, and whatever long winded reply I give will basically fizzle down to ‘ok life kinda sucks but I deal with it.’ Point taken though–who am I to be fretting about others when I don’t know shit about myself?
I’ve got to disagree with the logic of this, but I haven’t got the brevity with words you do so bear with me. Firstly, from what i understand, your argument hinges on the assumption that Christian faith and the atheist “faith” you describe are equally (or at least similarly) probable and reasonable, which I hope you can agree was a lapse in reasoning.
The next problem I have is with your description of atheism as a “faith” at all. My idea of atheism and the standard I hold myself to is not a “confidence beyond reason that there is no god” but both the conclusion and the process of a thorough examination of facts and a little (ok a bit more than a little) conversation. Sure this conclusion is not beyond a reasonable amount of doubt, as much as can be expected given the nature of god, but it is not beyond reason and logical thinking.
My third and biggest beef is the fact that you find yourself comforted by the realization that there is no god, and (if I’m reading your nuances right) say that to subtly equate atheism with religion as just a belief we hold for our emotional benefit. If you are holding a belief “beyond reason” just so you can feel good (“tremendously comforted(ing)”) in my eyes you are an atheist for all the wrong reasons. Being an atheist hurts.
COme on, none of this “my team over here, lets circle jerk!” kinda talk. I’ve already given my thoughts upon Nametag’s post. Please give us at least some substance to chew on with the statements you make–it’s hard for me to learn from you or rebut you. Really, I don’t need people like you to keep some kind of one sided running commentary without helping the conversation along.
You prayed to trees! I think that is so cool. Beautiful, reasoned response, too.
Yes there is.
The fact that, in spite of all efforts to subjugate, assimilate & even annihilate them, the Jews continue to survive and thrive, and that as predicted, their nation has been restored to them.
To the OP, unless you can demonstrably prove that your mother’s faith is harming her, let her be happy. You are 17-freakin’-years old and her child, not her wise elder or parent. If she gets sick & refuses medication, believing God will heal her, THEN you may have a case- and even then, it would be best to deal with her on her terms, not yours.
I think changing a belief system is pretty personal and takes time and a lot of patience to change. It sounds like your Mom has an emotional attachment and probably an emotional need associated with the church and it’s social aspect.
I have a couple of siblings who are Christians and made some effort to bring me back into the fold. After several discussions we mutually agreed not to bring it up. We love each other and enjoy each others company without going there.
So, let your Mom choose for herself and respect her right to do so even if you don’t agree. If she tries to preach to you then express your opinion clearly and patiently.
Fighting ignorance will continue on. Religious beliefs will slowly change over time as new generations come and go and more information is readily accessible.
Pissed off? I’m downright blissful!
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say your ticket stub has you in the intellectual bleachers on this one.
Before we get too ethereal, Mojo Pin states that his mother holds some benevolent yet ignorant views—about the existence of God in this instance.
Nametag provided the only rational, defendable, answer. Do you know another?
How’s this?
Apparently you missed the point. For all the navel watching in the OP, it boils down to the simple truth that both Mojo Pin and his mom are acting on their subjective beliefs. Despite the implication to the contrary, they are the same footing.
So the lengthy OP can be distilled down to the simple question asked there, “Can there be bliss in ignorance?”
In this thread, Mojo Pin is uniquely qualified to answer the question.
We’re getting somewhere!
Certainly you’d agree that the position that “there is no evidence of God” is not the same as “there is no God.”
Isn’t that right?
Actually, it would be Mojo Pin’s mom’s obligation “to evangelize and try to save [him] from Hell.”
I’d also note that the “Fighting Ignorance” mantra, coupled with a stunning lack of intellectual diversity, has *produced *Ignorance more than it has fought it.
The fact is, using any method he chooses, Mojo Pin would be unable to “prove” his mother is fundamentally wrong.
To imply that he could-----and should instead demonstrate restraint towards his mom-----is a disservice to the “Fighting Ignorance” concept.
I’m well aware of that. Since you and other people have covered that pretty thoroughly I thought I’d try saying something different.
I didn’t imply he could. We know how the OP feels about it, and I was saying “even IF you could, here’s why it isn’t a good idea.”
It depends on how you look at it. Functionally, they are the same.
Thanks for this post!
Seldom have I seen so much to talk about in so few words. Where to start?
Lets start here: What methods would one employ to “look at it”?
I’ll let Nametag speak for him/herself. But his post, and your response, provide the greatest opportunity for atheists in this board to get atheism right.
Nametag appears to be the first atheist I’ve seen in a while who is not a religionist; an atheist who hasn’t turned science into a religion.
I recently heard an interview of Richard Dawkins on NPR (Terry Gross/Fresh Air) and was struck by the faith he displayed. I understand that faith is a troublesome word for some atheists because of the caprice of many of the “faithful”, so I too prefer to not use it in the context of an atheist who shares his subjective beliefs as part of his atheism. So, in other words, I was was struck by how much of his belief system was subjective.
The problem with Dawkins, in my view, is that he time and again presented them as objective; and time and again implied that there was a scientific basis for what was clearly his subjective beliefs. At best that makes him a religionist. At worst, it makes him a charlatan who’s defaming science to sell books.
It takes strength, intelligence and intellectual honesty to understand where objective knowledge ends and subjective belief begins.
See above. I apologize if it seems like I’m being snarky. I don’t mean to be.
I guess it’s the “IF” part of these threads that draws me to them.