There seems to be posters in that thread that think so.
And this is, I think, the germ truth behind the thread title.
When someone is trying to convert you to a religion, they do so because they truly believe that you will be happier if you follow their god. Yes, some may be doing it because it gets them points or whatever, and obviously many go too far, but at least in theory, they really do want you to be happier and more fulfilled. They may be wrong, but they mean well.
In contrast, I seldom hear an atheist argue that lack of religious belief makes people happier, or more content, more peaceful. They may make arguments for how it will better society in general, but IME they generally are not trying to claim that the specific person they are speaking to will be happier. Some may, but I’ve seldom if ever heard it.
Hence, an atheist trying to convert a non-confrontational believer (like the OP’s GF) looks like someone telling a terminally ill five-year-old there’s no Santa Claus. Yes, you’re right, but it’s still a dick move.
As someone once said, “happiness alone isn’t enough, unless you are a cow.”
And really, I fail to see how feeding people false hope and convincing them to commit to a self destructive, irrational ideology just so you can feel all benevolent and self righteous isn’t “meaner” than an atheist trying to convince someone of the truth.
Of course, he’s five years old. Adults are supposed to be a bit more resilient. And most people aren’t dying.
I love it. Bringing down the religious to the same level as a dying 5 year old and their belief in Santa.
100% correct, IMHO.
Terrified people grasping at straws from which to weave a blanket of comfort.
I say let them have their comforting blanket of ignorance… at least until they try to suffocate you under it. And many will.
I’d have to say there’s probably a yes and a no to this. That is, faith (or non-faith, if you will) is a very personal thing. You can’t will it into being or out of being. You may present an issue that particularly strikes home for them and causes cognitive disonance, but chances are that they were already on shaky ground and a particular argument just sort of crystalized whatever they’re experiencing in their faith and allowed them to evaluate it intellectually as well.
For instance, I’ve seen arguments that have very much shaken my belief structure to the core, and even points where I intellectually believed that God was unlikely to exist, but even still, my faith never changed. Those arguments didn’t effect my faith precisely because it’s experiential, not intellectual, but they did show that the particular set of beliefs I’d had at the time were wrong. And so, I took time, re-evaluated, and rebuilt. But looking back over the last 15-20 years or so, since I was old enough to really evaluate these things on my own, my faith is at roughly the same level, despite some pretty radical changes in my beliefs.
This is also exactly why I think discussing religion in any sort of evangelical way is utterly pointless. You could absolutely demolish any particular argument that someone provides who has opposing views, and yet, you’re unlikely to change a thing about their faith. People who are losing their faith will inevitably latch onto things that assist, and those who are looking for it, will naturally latch onto something that brings them solace. As such, I’m happy to share my current thoughts when people ask.
In light of this, for the OP, I think there’s some truth to that quote, though perhaps “anyone” is too strong of a generalization. The thing is, I would actually regard anyone who claims to be absolutely certain in either direction and unwilling to consider the possibility of being wrong, even if they tend to believe along similar lines to me, as being more dangerous than someone I disagree strongly with. I can appreciate the idea of wanting to stomp out ignorance or perhaps part of a belief structure that is potentially negative (eg, WBC), but ignorance and bad ideas exist on both sides and can be attacked without attempting to negate someone’s faith.
The problem is, people wrap up their faith with a belief structure such that they feel as though they’re the same thing, and they aren’t. Having faith in the Christian God doesn’t require creationism, Biblical inerrancy, or any number of other things, and yet some people feel that those ideas are integral to their faith. It may rock your world view to change it, but if it doesn’t mean that an altering of that belief structure destroys your faith. At the same time, I’ve seen many atheists seem to belief that proving these sorts of things and making God unnecessary, thus seeing faith in spite of that is mind boggling.
But I have to ask, even if someone believes essentially all the same things as far as science goes, as someone who is an atheist, even that God is unnecessary, except they still believe in a God, so that the only real difference is faith, what more is there to discuss? At that point, arguing that they shouldn’t have faith is like arguing that they should or shouldn’t like a certain band, even after you both agree that they don’t have much talent, aren’t anything special or original, and any number of other things. It’s one thing if someone likes a band and argues that they are more talented than they are, and once you prove they’re not, then they lose interest; but if they continue to go on and like that band even after that, why would you want to keep raining on their parade?
So, in that light, if you would still seek to destroy someone’s faith, you do have a mean streak. If, however, you’re only interested in discussing how it affects the rest of the world, or in inconsistencies in the structure they’ve built around their faith, you may not.
I’m not seeing it. Certainly there are people advancing a (to me absurd) theory validating the literal truth of the existence of God, but there is no indication as to what they are getting out of it.
In Judaism, God doesn’t prefer you, or give you any credits, or really want, you to prostheletize. Some Jews (notably, the ultra orthodox) do so - with other Jews - but this is very much a minority view; and as far as I’m aware, no large denomination of Jews postheletizes non-Jews.
If happiness is a positive goal that shouldn’t be discouraged, then why shouldn’t I drink more? I am a happy drunk-I don’t argue or fight, and it seems to make my worries and cares go away. Someone may try to convince me to stop drinking for my well being, but they certainly aren’t doing it to make me happy in the sort run, are they? Now, my worries and cares may or may not really be gone, but I am happy when I am drunk and that’s what really matters.
Right?
But I have heard, and heard frequently, from atheists that their personal experience is that they are much happier as atheists. It’s usually described as feeling like they’ve been freed from a kind of mental bondage. They usually don’t say that the same experience will happen to the person they’re talking to, but the implication is there that it should happen for most people.
No, what this statement means is “Richard Dawkins doesn’t need religion to be happy”. And why should Richard Dawkins, who (even by the standards of a rich country) comes a reasonably priveleged background, is very rich and very successful be taken as a good indicator of people’s (in general) ability to be happy without religion? It’s like taking the hapiness of one member of the most privileged 0.000001% of the population to be a good indicator of the hapiness of the population as a whole.
That seems like a failry ancedotal argument to me. I could say lot’s opf smokers don’t have cancer, but it doesn’t say much about the link between cancer and smoking.
But that’s taking it’s argument at the most extreme i.e. no human could ever be happy without religion which surely is absurd. But the real issue is can religion help people to be happy? Will some people struggle to be happy without religion? Dawkins says absolutely not, religion cannot help you be happy (he criticized a well-known British comedian for saying as much in his biography). That to me sounds equally absurd.
I would say yes it is, especially in the militant form espoused by Dawkins. He simply cannot accept any other point of view on the subject other than his own.
That’s because logic and the facts are all on his side.
And “militant atheist” just means “an atheist who doesn’t grovel.”
It’s not that he cannot accept another viewpoint, it’s that the other viewpoints lack any shred of evidence.
Religion is the very definition of irrationality.
Is atheism a direct result of first-order logic? Is it proven by empiricism? I would say no to both counts.
What evidence is there for his postion? The lack of evidence for a statement does not prove its negation.
His position is that there is a resounding lack of evidence for a god.
Claims about gods are mostly outright logically incoherent - the Christian omnimax God and the Problem of Evil being a well known example. And given all the mutually contradictory claims made by the religious, most must be false. And it is a logical rule that the person claiming something exists is the one obligated to come up with evidence, not for the skeptic to disprove a negative.
As for empiricism; there isn’t any room for a god in the laws of physics. At least, not for a “god” that is anything other than an alien with cool technology. And claiming that “God cannot be detected and exists outside the laws of physics” is about as un-empirical as it is possible to get.
You were a kid and have kids. Surely you’ve been to a Chuck E Cheese or something similar once. Remember how you can win the games and collect tickets? And then you get to go to the prize counter and trade your tickets for coupons? For evangelicals it’s like that since converts earn afterlife goodies, and it’s their duty to convince as many people as they can to play skeetball and laser tag.
Or at least how it appears to me from the outside. I’ve never belonged to a religion that requires so much legwork.
What do you mean by “grovel”? Just out of curiosity, if an atheist converses with someone he or she knows to be religious, what kind of thing would you consider to be groveling?
If I dare speak for Bricker, he means that it’s not much of a supposition to make nor much of an accomplishment, to shred the arguments of someone who hasn’t given any serious thought about backing them up.
The bolded part is IMO your most interesting comment, and it proves the truth of the OP title up to a point. Your are not satisfied with an agreement you made to keep this subject off the table.
The may certainly be legitimate instances where you may feel called upon to revisit the subject. For instance if she bases some decision that you disagree with on her vague religious beliefs, you certainly should be able to criticize those beliefs while trying to change her mind.
But I assume that’s not what you mean. so I have to ask – why do you feel this way? At a guess, I think you respect her less because she has these beliefs, and you think less of her. Perhaps if you can teach her the errors of her thinking, she will be more fit in your eyes. Perhaps you just like to pick at silly ideas.
What I’m really saying is that you do go out of your way to raise the subject and attack her ideas, you probably DO have a mean streak. I don’t think that’s entirely bad. I think I have one myself – once in a while I like to make people (who I generally don’t much like anyway) squirm. Schadenfreude – we all indulge on occasion.
What if I’m only happy when I’m being mean?
This is just incorrect. He means that religion is not a necessity for human happiness. I would like to see a cite that it’s necessary for anybody.
Youy’re the one trying to draw a correlation between poverty and a need for faith in order to be happy. I say prove it.
Yet religious proselytizers say it all the time.
I am not aware of Dawkins saying this. Can you provide the exact quote.
This is factually incorrect. Atheism is not a belief and cannot be a faith. Even if you think a particular atheist is intolerant of theists, that doesn’t make atheism a faith.