I think most people have this right: if you think a particular behavior is obnoxious when (religious) people do it to you, you shouldn’t do it to them either. It’s a good general guideline.
It depends on the context, but this can create an unreasonable double-standard where atheists are expected to listen to everybody else’s beliefs because they’re positive and make believers feel good, but stay silent about their own views because they’re puportedly negative and make believers feel bad. I’m not going to start lecturing people about religious atrocities if they wish me a happy Easter, but I don’t think my views are subject to more constraints than anybody else’s.
And it’s also true there are places where actions by religious groups and policies based on religious views need to be strenuously opposed. There are usually multiple reasons to oppose those kinds of things, but it’s not inappropriate to bring up an atheist viewpoint in those situations.
Maybe we can get a sticky about atheism not being a claim about proving or disproving anything? It almost 40 years of being involved in these kind of discussions, I’ve met only one atheist who claimed that he could disprove the concept of God in general. I’ve met plenty of people who claim that atheists inherently do this, though.
I suggest for one of the many threads on this topic, and become enlightened.
I live and work in an environment where religious diversity is so great that this subject never comes up. If someone asks, I’ll be honest about my lack of belief. I’d only challenge someone else if they are trying to make me do something or prevent me from doing something because they think God says to. Hasn’t happened. To show what a good town I live in, a few years ago a very Christian member of the school board decided that the district should have a day of prayer. Another member said that he’d personally sue if they did. No worries - no one else on the board thought that a prayer day was a good idea.
Well, then, it won’t come up if you aren’t trying to prove to us that our beliefs are wrong. It’s when you try to convince us that our beliefs are illogical that we are going to pull out how illogical your beliefs are. If you didn’t want that type of discussion, why did you bring it up?
Oh, and the answer to the OP is obvious: only when it’s relevant, and when it’s not about pissing other people off. This is the same thing for religious people. Honestly, I think a lot of the problem is that atheists don’t think their lack of belief is religious. And, yeah it technically isn’t, but that doesn’t change that you can treat it just like a religion when it comes to when it is acceptable to discuss.
And, no, some jackass out there who makes you feel bad for being an atheist doesn’t justify you making someone else feel bad for being a theist. Save your ire for the specific people who are bothering you, preferably when they are actually bothering you.
Neither theists nor atheists spend a significant portion of their life discussing what they believe. And that’s the way it should be.
I’ve been told that when I post funny anti-religious images on Facebook, I’m insulting Christians and shoving my atheism (which I never said I was) down peoples’ throats, yet those same people quote the Bible all day long. I don’t see how it’s different. I’m not trying to encourage them to lose their faith. Now, posting the images might be insulting but it’s my page damnit; I can post what I want. And it insults me too, when someone makes it through something rough and thanks Jesus for it. YOU did it all by yourself, not Jesus. Have some respect for yourself.
Some/many people do exercise the fallacy of appealing to ignorance (usually in simple defensive arguments, anyway); however, that doesn’t speak to the fundamentals of any particular faith, or lack thereof.
In fact, most theist I know don’t assume anything close to this, in order to reaffirm their beliefs. They have their reasons and stand by their faith, sometimes because they’ve been indoctrinated, and other times because their belief is genuine, intelligent, and substantiated. Their concept of God and way of life don’t need to be proven, as they instead live and embrace it, without the need for validation.
Similar to the above, you’ve created a strawman for both sides. What you’re referring to is different than claiming “what can’t be proven is thereby disproven”.
In most context, the train of thought usually follows the idea that “indisputable evidence in God remains unproven, therefore, I choose not to forge a belief system/way of life from it, among other reasons”. It’s an acceptable stance to take, but only a fraction of a larger idea and certainly different than what you’re suggesting.
It depends on the circumstance and your intentions. Remember that you don’t need to indict “Religion” as a whole to take on a particularly hateful nutbag who uses religion to justify their own hate.
**Is someone slagging off and making false statements about nonbelievers? **
Yes. Step up and be the counterpoint.
**Is someone directly asking you what your beliefs are? **
Yes. State your beliefs in a “it ain’t no big thing” manner.
Is someone presenting Bible verse as literal factual historical record?
Maybe. Don’t kid yourself about how much or little people will change their mind about dearly-held beliefs. Gauge the situation and their emotional quotient to estimate whether challenging their faith will be perceived as “interesting food for thought” vs. “unwarranted attack.” You may also consider whether you want strained relationships with this person in the near- to medium- term.
Is someone merely mentioning how much solace/comfort/peace-of-mind they get from their faith?
No, this is like threadshitting. All you are doing is kicking a leg out of something they value. As a mature adult, you should be able to continue the solace/comfort/peace-of-mind conversation with something that doesn’t shit on something they cherish.
Yes, non-religious people should be vocal about their non-belief. It helps break the shell of denial that believers build around themselves, letting them pretend that their fantasies are unquestionable reality. It helps them see that you can be an atheist without being a psychopath. It makes it harder for them to deny that atheists exist. It makes it clear to people teetering on the edge that yes, there are non-believers; that non-believers are neither non-existent nor monsters. It helps break the cycle of believers telling each other how right they are and becoming ever more extreme & delusional.
That’s a false equivalency; religion is blatant garbage, atheism fits the facts. And at any rate not talking about atheism isn’t going to stop the constant, relentless proselytizing by the believers. I don’t buy the idea that if someone punches you in the face that your response should be to just paste on a smile and let them keep punching you over and over.
Nonsense. Even the ones who believe atheists actually exist generally have a completely distorted idea of atheism and atheists. Religious people in America generally live in a bubble where only pro-religious ideas are allowed.
Exactly. The “politeness” that believers want from atheists* is just a nice sounding way of demanding absolute submission. It makes me think of the military “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy actually; where any homosexuals were expected to remain silent and outright lie if asked about their relationships, while everyone else freely talked about their wives, girlfriends, kids and so on. Atheists are supposed to shut up and pretend they don’t exist.
*assuming that the atheist in question won’t die or convert
I’m a quiet atheist. My family isn’t religious, but there’s a lot of good within various religions, and most of the people I know who do believe gain a great deal from their religion, and would gain nothing at all from atheism. I see no reason to try to convert anyone away unless their religion is harming them. I actually really like churches and rituals and community togetherness; the fact that they’re all due to something that <to me> doesn’t exist doesn’t mitigate in the slightest the fact that they do people GOOD. So I have no problems with any of it, or anyone who believes. I just say ‘no thank you’ to those who try to ‘save’ me, but honestly most folk assume I’m religious anyway, apparantly. As I don’t run around going ‘there’s no god!’ nobody knows, or cares, what I think except by my actions. And that’s how it should be.
I’d be happy to open a thread about this - but you’ll have to promise to deal with my actual beliefs, not the ones you claim I have. Okay?
I’ve been in places where you can hardly move five feet without someone bringing up God. I was in Charlotte, NC once and the paper had a column saying that the populace should cool it with the God loves you stuff, it was scaring the tourists. When is the last time an atheist brought up no God randomly on the street? I know they do it with good will, but we are awash with God in some places.
But I already know what they believe and why. This religion stuff isn’t exactly a secret, especially when it’s people I know. Aside from the amusement value of listening to them thinking they’re making coherent points, there’s no benefit in asking them to attempt to justify their beliefs in 500 words or less.
Of course there’s also a massive chance that the atheist’s arguments will be dismissed out of hand with little or no consideration, so there’s no benefit to actually starting such a discussion, either, unless you’re the sort of atheist who derives pleasure from getting people pissed off at you. (Responding to an argument the other person starts, on the other hand…)
As other people have pointed out, this demonstrates a staggering lack of understanding of modern atheism. (Among other things, modern atheists claim that the majority of agnostics are among their number.) I suggest you do a little reading up on the subject before commenting on it again.
And to the OP, fair warning: these theist people? They don’t want to hear about your atheism. Telling them about is not going to earn you any friends, especially since you seem to be going into it with the idea that you want to ‘convert’ them. As I said above, that’s not a route to personal satisfaction.
Based on Doper Christians, I don’t assume I know what they believe. They say they are Christians, but do they believe in the Bible? Not really? Do they believe salvation lies through Jesus alone? Not really. And so on. Judging from the defense of religion in various Times columns on Sunday it appears that the major defense against atheism is that churches are cool social clubs. In any case, the reason that it is silly to expect any atheist to “disprove” religion is that there are so many versions out there, and actually disproving one version just makes adherents of others smugger.
Oh heavens, I wasn’t talking about Doper Christians! That lot is inscrutable! (I know what I’m talking about - I’m currently plumbing the depths of kanicbird’s beliefs in another thread.) I was talking about the people there would be any chance I would “consider approaching” with a religious discussion: the people I know, my friends and family. I have a moderately decent handle on what they believe; by a conservative estimate it was hammered into me for around eighteen years.
Your average atheist doesn’t try to “disprove religion” - there’s the niggling detail that very few of us claim to be able to know with absolute certainty that there are no gods of any kind, and those who do make that claim have the minor difficulty of being wrongheaded. The typical line of attack would be to target a specific religion, which, assuming the religion is coherent, would give you a certain set of specifics to talk about, which may or may not lend themselves to proving the religion false. Typically the grander the religion, the more easily proven false it is - the Holy Order Of The Completely Static And Powerless Paper Cup is hard to disprove, especially if they happen to have the cup on hand. Deities that created the world 4000 years ago, on the other hand, can easily be disproven by clubbing their adherents unconscious with a geology textbook. Deities that were born during insanely orchestrated censuses that didn’t happen followed by mass infanticide that didn’t happen fall somewhere in the middle. For a the example you mention, Christianity is a somewhat slippery target since there are a wide variety of adherents, including ones who make no claims of miracles, resurrection, or divinity - essentially the ancient dead guy version of the HOOTCSAPPC (not-on-hand variant), while at the other extreme, well, it’s clubbin’ time. Of course, whichever variant that you happen to be dealing with at any given moment, there’s still the minor problem that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink - there is no argument that can’t be defeated by the judicious application of fingers to ears and the religious incantation “la la la I can’t hear you”. Well, aside from the geology book argument. That one tends to make an impact regardless.
