Yes, it was a logical implication from the OP. It’s a good question to tease out the original question. Nothing wrong with it.
So this is only about challenging the beliefs of people you already know? I don’t see why we have to restrict it to that, especially since others haven’t. But if you insist, fine, I’ll ask a new question:
Would you go to the door of the office of a coworker you knew was religious, because she had mentioned her beliefs publicly (but not directly challenged you about yours), and tell her she’s wrong about her beliefs?
Is that close enough to the OP for you?
I’d look forward to an answer.
Stop it.
You have no idea what I believe. And that’s on purpose, so that you can’t pull stunts like this.
From here it seems more like you wanted to change the subject. Or if your intention was to “tease out” what the OP wanted instead of hijacking the thread, you didn’t do it very well because you changed the topic rather than illuminating it. This has become a habit for you, lance strongarm, and I am going to encourage you in the strongest possible terms to stop it. What you’ve actually done, at least for the most part, is hijack a lot of threads by changing the subject. You need to stop doing this or you’ll start getting warnings for it. The subjects of threads often evolve but people get annoyed when a poster enters a thread and more or less declares “we’re going to talk about this now.” Stay as close to the topic of threads as possible and if you are going to “tease out” the implications of an OP, make sure you make it clear what you’re doing and how it’s relevant to the topic.
I completely disagree. I was not changing the topic. I was offering a hypothetical that described the topic in a meaningful way, one that could apply to anyone and could help people answer the question in the OP. I was not hijacking. I don’t see how my question was far off the topic at all. I did not declare that we had to talk about my question and not any other question. Anyone could pose a question that they think helps illuminate the topic, such as an analogy or example.
You did. If you did not intend to change the topic, you need to re-evaluate your arguing style. If you make an analogy, make it explicit that it’s an analogy and draw a clear connection to the actual subject. And consider starting with a discussion of the actual subject and introducing the analogies later on.
The Original question BTW, was: “Is there a responsibility on the part of atheists to challenge belief when it is presented to them?” Additionally: “If that challenge causes emotional pain and distress to the believer, is it justified ethically?”
I didn’t mention anything about aggressive arguing, door-to door evangelism, etc. That was entirely on you lance.
Yes, the benchmark works both ways. If someone is questioning their religion or is otherwise unhappy with it, then providing alternatives (including no religion) is perfectly fine (in that, you aren’t being a jerk for providing the alternatives.)
If you want to actually be listened to, your delivery is important. “You’re religion is a lie” is going to come off as arrogant and arguementative and they won’t listen (so, in effect, you’re still a jerk… but because of your delivery). Similarly, if you’re questioning your atheism and someone comes up and says “You’re unhappy because you haven’t found God.” The message is still good (I want to enlighten you and make you a happier person), but they should work on their delivery.
What I wrote was harsher than what I meant. But let me give you examples of when an Atheist would offer his perspective to help a religious person who is suffering.
“It’s ok to be who you are, tell your parents you’re gay. I understand it will be difficult for them and the faith you were brought up in makes it a sin, but even if he existed would you want to worship a being that despised what he was responsible for making?”
“I am so sorry for your loss, horrible things happen to even the greatest of people. The pain you are suffering isn’t a test, it isn’t a punishment, it isn’t a plan. It just is. Make the most of your life and live it.”
“I know things are bad now, but remember when you graduated from college? I remember thinking you were responsible for achieving that, you struggled, you worked, you and you alone earned that and no one on Earth could stop you and nothing in Heaven needed to intervene. You are stronger than this, you can do it.”
Is this really how an atheist thinks or views his beliefs in contrast with Christianity? It sounds so bleak.
As far as I am concerned Jesus never said he would despise anyone who was homosexual.
As for if suffering has a meaning or not, isn’t it more probable that suffering happens for a reason and not just because (or maybe not, I don’t know and I am not going to assume I do)
And no one, despite their personal talents, ever does anything on their own. There are always outside forces which contribute to anyone’s success or challenges. To think you did it all on your own with no help, either temporal or spiritual is not only wrong it’s shortsighted and prideful
Other people disagree with you, unfortunately. And Jesus isn’t Christianity.
Everything happens for a reason. The question is whether or not it happens as part of a greater cosmic plan or destiny, and atheists in general are going to vote “no” on that question.
Being obnoxious or arrogant is bad, but being proud of your accomplishments is a good thing. Nobody achieves anything entirely on his own, but that’s not the point of what Sitnam was saying.
That sounds exactly like what he was saying and the point he was making, but I could be wrong. I don’t ever have a problem admitting when I am mistaken.
I know self empowerment is scary, it means you and you alone are responsible when you screw up, not the devil, not other sinners, you. The trade off is you deserve the credit when it works out and you don’t need to give some of it to someone who doesn’t exist.
Self empowerment and self aggrandizement are different. I know I can’t do anything on my own. I have my friends, family, coworkers, even complete strangers who have backed me up and assisted me along the way. I also personally choose to recognize a supernatural force in that success but I am also aware that it isn’t all God. Even He says He helps those who help themselves. That is what self empowerment means to me.
And no, not you and you alone are responsible when things go wrong. Sure, if I make a horrible decision which leads to a bad situation then I place blame on myself where it is due. But not every bad thing that happens is my fault. I cannot control the action or decisions of others. That is where free will and the power to choose come in. God does not want to force people to make good choices nor does he choose the consequences, and neither do I.
The way I look at religion, is it gives me set of parameters in which to live my life to the greatest fulfillment, and I can choose to live within those parameters or not. If I choose not to, I open myself up to less fulfillment. That is my choice. No one else’s, and God does not take that choice away from me.
Fault and responsibility are not the same thing. If something bad happens to you, it may not be your fault, but in general it’s going to be your responsibility to fix it since it’s your life.
so it was disingenuous rhetoric?
Isn’t that what you criticize religion for?
Why would I choose atheism if it can’t offer me a better choice than my religion?
But it isn’t always fixable. That is where my faith gives me the strength to endure, because I am humble enough to realize it isn’t always going to get better and it doesn’t have to for me to maintain my faith in God and my faith that I have something better to look forward to when I pass.
I don’t fault those who don’t believe this, but I also do not appreciate when someone who does not believe what I do thinks it is their place to correct me or tell me I am wrong. I am sorry, but you can not know with any more certainty than I do what the absolute truth is so stop thinking you do. Have a little humility and admit you don’t know anymore than I do. I only know what feels right to me, and I leave the possibility open that I could be wrong, but so far this feels like the right path and you cannot choose that for me.
No, it’s not always fixable. So pretend I wrote “deal with it the best you can” instead of “fix,” because I actually did mean to add something about situations that can’t be fixed. It’s still your responsibility and nobody else can do that for you.
No, the person I had in mind was disowned at a young age never to see his parents again, friendless he struggled in the gutter clawing his way out until he met me on graduation day.
But it doesn’t matter at all because that was not the point.
I’m going to ask for a cite.
Because your life is your responsibility alone, the choices you make dictate your path, it was not laid out before you were born and you don’t have to beg to change its course.
When a loved one suffers, is it better knowing god did it?
Because as far as we can tell it matches reality, and religion does not.
That doesn’t mean you can’t take the teachings of religion, any religion, and apply them to your life. Just do so because they make sense, not because you were taught that some deity says so. But you can do that with teachings from other works of fiction also.
As for the bleakness of atheism, I have a much easier time with people dying from natural disasters because we are very small compared to our planet than God killing mothers and babies (or letting them die) for reasons of his own. Good things happen, bad things happen. Some we have control over, some we don’t.
It all boils down to what you think God is (which is funny because you don’t even think there is a God so what qualifies you to discuss his attributes?) and what I believe He is.
You can’t know that I believe he intentionally kills babies and mothers or that He “lets” them die, or whatever. What I believe and what you assume I believe are not the same thing. If you really want to know these answers and are REALLY open to discussion I can point you towards the resources I use. If you are just poking me with a proverbial stick and being contrary just to try to make a point, then what good does it do to even have a discussion in the first place? I am open to debate, but I would be wasting my time if you are going to say the same things over and over again. I don’t agree with you and I have given pretty darn good reasons why. You either accept my reasoning or you don’t. The End.