No-you’ve just posted over and over again about the supposed opinions of religious people, while playing games as to whether you are religious yourself or not.
Aaaand this fucking game of yours is over, as far as I’m concerned. I think I’ll go back to talking to others, on both sides of this issue, who are willing to state their own actual opinions.
I’m giving you another warning here: you’ve been advised many times to make your argument without calling people names like “closed-minded” and you’ve already been warned for using this exact comparison in another thread.
But you’ve been dictating the conversation for quite some time, largely by making demands of other people and asking them to re-explain their arguments to suit you. I think you should consider a new rhetorical strategy.
I think that both can be effective, in their own time and place. When one side is pushing, it is valid and proper to push back, if for no other reason than to maintain the status quo(how ever poor that might currently be for science in general and atheists in particular.) When questionably scientific or outright pseudoscientic religious glurge is introduced as a topic, then public inquiries can be effective. I noticed the difference you’ve made between “Atheist activism” and “anti-fundamentalist activism”. While I acknowledge the difference, I have found that most(but not all) “anti-fundamentalist activism” is poorly populated by non fundamentalist religionists for various reasons, and mislabeled “atheist activism” by opposing forces for propoganda purposes. Can’t be helped, I suppose, but it is frustrating sometimes.
Just when we are finally on the verge of some clarity too. Oh well. The question still stands, and I think it reflects the OP and the discussion.
Do you have the “responsibility” to tell a 5 year old that there is no Santa Claus?
Do you have the “responsibility” to tell a dying person there is no hope of survival?
Unless you are an unbelievable asshole, the answer is no.
You know Santa isn’t a real person, all logic and evidence in the world tells you that its impossible. It is, however, not your place to burst that particular bubble. Santa isn’t causing you (or them) any harm, and it could be argued that the belief results in something positive. The kid is going to think about right and wrong, if only because “Santa only brings toys to the good boys and girls.” It could set him on a path towards a greater moral awareness and desire to do good. (Much as religion is designed to do. Establish a moral framework for right and wrong.) Sure, you could get the same results without the obviously fictional elements (Be good and I will give you a present every year on December 25th) but the existence of an illogical element doesn’t make the resultant behavior any less positive.
This belief COULD continue to grow into something negative. Perhaps, the kid notices that the Jewish kid next door never gets presents. Logically, that means that the Jewish kid wasn’t a “good boy”. Since he isn’t a “good boy”, it is not only ok to beat him up and take his lunch money, but its my duty as a Santanist. In this case, belief in Santa is the direct cause of the bad behavior, but you really want the behavior
itself to stop. Logically, the best response is going to be the response that makes him realize that what he is doing is bad. Fully explaining why Santa can’t exist isn’t going to give him ANY insight as to why beating the jewish kid up is wrong. You are simply telling him “thats not a reason to beat him up”. Thus, the response should not be “Santa doesn’t exist”. The more effective response would be to confront
the behavior itself and explain why that is bad.
The same can be said of religion. Someone may be using “God” as their excuse for bad behavior, and may even believe it. But proving that he doesn’t exist won’t necessarilly stop the bad behavior (Though, it MAY stop them from following the otherwise “good” behavior that the religion has taught them… e.g.. “I was only being nice to you because I wanted to get into heaven. Since heaven doesn’t exist, on with the raping and pillaging”).
As for my other example, You may know that the dying man is very unlikely to pull through. There is nothing in medical science today that can “cure” him and that the likelihood is 99.99% that he will be dead soon. If that person is holding out hope that “God” will save him, what benefit is there to explaining to him that there is no god?
In 99.99% of the cases, you are simply adding additional pain and suffering to a world that has plenty.
In .01% of the cases, you’ve just given them all the evidence they will ever need about god existing. Further, whatever you say in the future, no matter how logical, is probably wrong as well.
Another vote from the “Let’s take the argument to rediculous extremes” camp.
Didn’t read the whole thread, but wanted to give my opinion anyway. 
I’m an atheist, or at least, very uncommitted religiously. And I think that it is no more an atheist’s job to “challenge belief” than is for a religious person to promote it. i.e. I wish people would shut the hell up and let other people get on with believing whatever it is they believe.
The only time anyone has a right, nevermind a responsibility, to challenge someone else’s beliefs is when those beliefs are harming someone else (and maybe, maybe, if that person’s beliefs are harming them.). And no, “believing something stupid” is not harming a person. It’s probably appropriate to “challenge” Scientology, since all signs point to it basically being an enormous scam, but that’s neither here nor there.
I also recently read this, which is kinda depressing, but also does a good job of helping a lot of people understand “what’s up” with religion, and why it’s not really worth challenging people on harmless beliefs.
Of course, all this depends on your definition of “harmless”.
No, there was nothing in the OP about evangelical atheism, door-to-door or otherwise, nor of seeking opportunities to convert people. It was clearly in the context of one-to-one interactions of people one already knows whose beliefs one already knows.
I’d be baffled at why you insist on trying to rewrite the OP if I didn’t know that desperate attempts at equivalence are the stock and trade of those whose sympathies run to the superstitious and mythical.
any response to my post #236
I thought it was a reasonable view point, but everyone seems hellbent on focusing on one poster. Why ignore my post?
Nobody ever said all wars were started by religious people or that there would be no war without religion.
Well… Yeah. The question lends itself to answering with extremes.
“Should we challenge belief at EVERY opportunity?”
Is there a responsibility? Which has the implication that one should ALWAYS do it. No, here are examples of times when it is not appropriate and irresponsible.
Sure, I could have come up with less extreme examples, but by going to extreme the point hits home harder. But, for your sake, lets take the specific example given by the OP.
Mom has concerns about what happens after she dies. It brings her comfort to think that after she dies she will be reunited with loved ones near and far.
Lets even further state that you know with an absolute certainty (which you don’t.) what the experience of death and post-death is like and that she is wrong.
Her belief in the afterlife has absolutely no effect on you.
Her belief in the afterlife has absolutely no effect on anyone else.
Her belief in the afterlife makes her happy and in no way harms her.
What kind of an asshole are you to take that away from her in an effort to “be right” or “prove her wrong”?
That said, if mom is asking you “do you believe this too?” You do have a responsibility to be honest with your responses, and admit you don’t believe this way. And if pressed, then, yes, you give your arguements for why you don’t believe it. (i.e. you definitely do not have the responsibility to hide your thoughts and opinions).
If mom is saying “it will be so wonderful, I’m going to kill myself so I get there early.” Then, you may have some responsibility to challenge her beliefs. (I would say, you don’t have the responsibility, but I’m going to do my best to make sure she stays safe.).
If mom is saying “it will be so wonderful, I’m going to kill the neighbors so they can be happy for eternity” (yes, I’m going to extremes, but substitute your favorite “cause harms to people in the second or third person”), then there is a absolutely a responsibility to get her to see the errors in her ways, but not necessarilly a responsibility to stop her from the basic belief. If you actually want some sort of results, you’ll be better off working within their belief system. (“Killing the neighbors means you can’t get into heaven. Wouldn’t that be terrible” for instance).
So, like most of the people who have responded (and didn’t get into the “Religion is harmful because all religious people are out to get me” side track) I’m of the opinion that you have absolutely no responsibility to argue someones beliefs unless there is imminent harm to yourself or someone else.
Though, you do absolutely have the Right to do so… but exercising that right in most cases just makes you an asshole.
but they did say that there was a obligation or responsibility to help religious people see the error of their belief, and one of the arguments to support this was that religion was responsible for human atrocities and by eliminating religious belief it would somehow improve the human condition. So my post was addressing that and relevant to the original discussion.
If one can’t make an argument against religion or religious belief other than that it has a propensity to make people think silly things, then what is the point of trying to dispel that belief? I am sure there are plenty of silly things people who aren’t religious believe or do, but how does that hurt anyone?
While Atheism isn’t a belief structure that position leads many to share similar beliefs about other things, so would you agree any religious person evangelizing to them is an asshole?
Actually, this is the crux of the question, in my opinion: It depends on whom you are considering challenging. Is it some stranger who’s pushing Jesus literature on you? Or is it your dear Aunt Mary, who’s doing nothing more than wearing a crucifix? The answer to the OP’s question would be very different.
If the evangelizing is a result of someone saying “I’m a happy atheist,” then yes.
If its as a result of someone saying “everything in my life sucks, I wish I knew how to make it better” then no. They are trying to help in their own way.
nm…
I assume your benchmark works both ways. I get to tell people their religion is a lie when they are unhappy, and you’re cool with that.
I just want to keep it straight.
I don’t think it’s a ridiculous extreme. It’s part analogy, and part literally what some people here are proposing.
Because some posters are admittedly more stubborn and active and delve deeply into the flaws in arguments, and that annoys some people.