I don’t think any group can decide what an individual’s social responsibility is or should be. Social responsibility is(or at least should be) self-appointed, because it depends on the whole of the person. How one is raised, how one is taught, what one is given, what one has taken, in what societal position one is in-all these and more are factors, and no group can weigh these and decide what debt, if any, is owed by an individual.
This is an excellent point, but I think I’m reaching for something a bit more philosophical with the question. We can all agree about “proper time and place” etc, but generally speaking, is there an ethical imperative to challenge belief when we KNOW there are accurate, real world answers? I think there is generally speaking. However, when this process causes significant distress to the believer, does the ethical violation of being the cause of that distress weigh heavier than the general imperative to correct nonsense?
If a person both feels that it is right, and also feels that they are capable of counteracting the point effectively, then perhaps. Unopposed woo is bad-badly opposed woo can possibly be much worse, because the poorly prepared argument will be touted as representative of all that opposed that particuar woo.
You have to pick your battles. Whether the beliefs are religious or not, there are times it’s just not worth it and not your place to correct people. If it’s causing some kind of harm to someone (including the believer) beyond simply being wrong, it’s worth considering in the context of your relationship with the person and so on. But it’s not your job to correct everybody and it’s frqeuently a poor use of your time because they may not listen anyway- and as much as it’s possible, you might as well try to talk to people who are willing to listen.
If it’s that distressing to the believer, what are the chances they’ll think about what you are saying? I’d say it’s nearly zero.
Doesn’t it become one, or a lot like one, when someone tries to convince someone else to be an atheist?
There’s a big difference between defending one’s deep-seated views and attacking someone else’s. I’m a big proponent of the first, but not so much the latter. This is more from pragmatic reasons than philosophical ones.
That’s one defintion, and a more restrictive one. A more useful definition especially for this forum, is “Atheism is lack of belief in any god or gods.”
But you’re correct that it is generally based on faith in rationality.
I see that here, like those who keep repeating “but I’m right, and they’re wrong”, seeming to think that the more they say it, the better an argument it is.
I think Lance has made some rhetorical mistakes, and he’s definitely used arguments that I don’t find convincing and wouldn’t use. But I do agree that one should show respect for the beliefs of others even when they seem silly, and that it’s more important (especially in the US) to focus on actions rather than the beliefs, even if the beliefs may be causative. Thankfully the US has a Constitutional separation of church and state.
Back to the original question.
Without some ethical framework, it’s unanswerable. So, perhaps we should revise the question to be, “as humanists, …”
It comes down to a question of values. One of the things I value is harmony and having a good strong relationship with my family. I find those things more important than trying to impose my opinions on them.
Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
Whether they actually do challenge something is up to them as an individual. There is no duty to challenge.
No responsibility. As an atheist, I follow no deity or creed, so my responsibility is my own. I challenge only when I’m in the mood
Christian here. The only way you can be ethically required to do something (without a God) is if not doing so causes definite harm to others. Getting all the propaganda out of the way, only the extremes of religion hurt anyone, so those are the ones you should combat. And you should go after the worst ones that you can have an effect on. And you, as everyone else in society, have an obligation not to be a jerk. Plus, jerks just aren’t convincing.
Atheists that claim no ethical obligations are exactly the type of atheists that the religious think are horrible, and they are right.
Finally! I’ve been holding your place in line.
I actually don’t agree with these bits (though the not being a jerk part sounds good) It’s the moustache-twisting effect. If you seen someone obviously unpleasant - let’s take the Phelps family - they may be obviously much more unpleasant than most, but that blunts the effect that they do have. And on the other hand, there are plenty of nice, average, friendly, generally decent people who I would characterise as doing considerable harm - you could pick out such people on either side of the abortion debate, for example. The extremes may be certain, but a person voting for (or against) abortion has a powerful effect - and there are more people towards the middle, too.
Similarly, there’s basically zero chance that you could ever hope to persuade a true fanatic to abandon their cause. You could spend millions, hire the most persuasive, charismatic people, but it wouldn’t matter a jot to people at the extremes. People nearer the middle are more, for lack of a better word, potentially malleable, more worth going after, more worth spending time and effort with.
I agree with most of what you are saying. Atheism and other religions are not equal. We are all born atheists. Religion is something thats taught and we learn. I even agree with you that Atheists are a threat to their existence.
However, they don’t all hate us, at least not in all cases. This is just a wild exaggeration. Some of my best friends are christian. They just think that I am wrong and missing out. Ironically, the feeling is mutual.
So how do you explain that?
To answer the OP, I don’t think we have any “responsibility” to spread atheism. Personally, I like to view it as a matter of value. Do I value my relationship with my friend more or is proving a point in a pointless debate more important?
Also, something to consider, they could be right. Even though all evidence points to that NOT being the case, nobody really knows.
I’m an atheist myself, and have been for all my adolescent and adult life, but this makes no sense. None of us are “born” atheists, any more than we’re born pre-equipped with any other worldview.
Atheism is not some kind of default state of the human psyche: ignorance is. Children grow up with theist or atheist beliefs according to what they’re told by adults, and many of them later change their minds (in either direction) at some point in their lives.
If none of us humans ever had any childhood instruction about the existence of supernatural beings, some of us would assume that there were no supernatural beings, and some of us would imagine and invent supernatural beings to believe in. That, after all, is presumably how belief in supernatural beings originally entered human societies in the first place (or at least, that’s how I as an atheist reconstruct that development).
Nooooo… I do not believe in any kind of god. I’m therefore an atheist. I also do not believe that no god of any kind exists, since no one has offered convincing evidence for that proposition. I’m therefore also an agnostic.
Some atheists insist on the nonexistence of any god. Those atheists have a ‘belief system’. They believe (without adequate evidence, IMO) that there is no god. You might be able to make an argument that such a ‘belief system’ is similar to religion (not that you’ve actually tried, let alone succeeded). DT’s attitude toward the question might even give you some ammo for the gun you’re trying to fire, here. But how the fuck you can get the statement of yours that I just quoted from my attitude toward the question (which is not at all unusual amongst the atheists of this world) is just unfathomable. Plain and simple, your statement may be true for some atheists, but it is unadulterated bullshit, if applied generally, as you have done.
FTR, vis-a-vis the OP. I have no responsibility to “wise-up-the-dummy”. I will or won’t as it suits me, and as it benefits me. And you might be surprised at whom it ‘plows down’ when exercised…
That judging from the polls, your friends are either the exception to the rule, or lying to you about how they feel. Or are the sort who are good at hating “sinful” people they don’t know well, but convince themselves that individuals they know well are exceptions to the rule. “Some of my best friends are black/gay/Jews/whatever” is a cliche for a reason.
See? What I just said. He ain’t representative of the rest of us. He just ain’t. Nor will we defend the insanity he spews.
:dubious: What insanity? The polls are pretty clear on just how despised atheists are by Americans.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god or any organized religion. This was your default. No one had any preconceived ideas about god when they were born.
I’d like to see these polls.
I guess if I had to pick one of your options, they would be “exceptions to the rule.” The funny thing is I haven’t ever met someone who hated me for being atheist. If someone did, I would consider that an exception.