What should an Atheist do???

I bought my mom, who is a practicing Catholic, "The God Who Wasn't There" for christmas. I think she'll enjoy it, and it is an attempt on my part, I guess, to proselytize for once.

But I found myself thinking: do I really want to "convert" believers, like my mom?

I think, obviously, that there isn't a god of any sort. But, at the same time, I think that believing in god is healthy. I think thats why the vast majority of humanity believes in god(s), because we are the only species that understands our own mortality, and we need ways to cope with that reality.

So, if belief in a god is healthy, but if belief in a god is wrong, what should us Atheists do?? Do we attempt to show believers the light, or do we allow them to live in their fantasy world, even though its not real, because it is a healthier existence???

Let her figure it out for herself. That's what makes Agnostics and Athiest better...

Just live your life well and happy without religion and proove that you're in no way shape or form some lowlife and you'll do all the preaching and prostelizing that you'll ever need to.

I find it arrogant.

Believers find comfort in their faith, why should I want to take that away from them?

That's the conclusion I've reached too, for the most part.

This sorta thing ties in with other questions of mine, particularly whether it is better to be informed and knowledgeable, or better to be ignorant.

It seems, in many cases, that having a certain level of ignorance is desirable in today's society. Not complete, utter stupidity ignorance, but blissful unawareness, more like it.

I just want people to think, I guess. I'm fine if they think and reach different conclusions than me, and so long as they don;t push those conclusions as law, I don't have problems.

Ultimately, though, its tough to come to a hard and fast decision on a question like this.

And if someone is afraid to look at the world through our eyes, they won't learn anything even if you can get them to read a book or watch a movie.

There's nothing wrong with giving her the movie if you think she will better understand where you are coming from or even if you think she'll enjoy it.


Remember, it really is the thought that counts.;)

The only exception is when someone voluntarily gets in my face about my blasphemous godlessness. If someone starts that conversation, I have no qualms about engaging with full enthusiasm.

When asked, I make no secret about my lack of belief regarding God or other supernatural phenomena, but I don't initiate any conversion process, either.

For atheists, what is the point of proselytizing to believers? If there is no deity and no afterlife, and indeed nothing supernatural at all, then the ultimate fate of your mom is the same no matter whether you get her to agree with you or not.

In that case, the only thing you could accomplish would be to alter her beliefs in this life. And to what advantage? It seems to me that there is nothing important to be gained by proselytizing atheism - and that there is certainly a downside.

Of course, not being an atheist, I would not be in a position to know what an atheist would hope to achieve. It will be interesting to see how other atheists respond to your post.

And that makes the decision difficult. As I said in a previous post, I agree with BMS for the most part, but I'm wondering what other atheists think.

The only benefit would be to inform, to teach. There isn't any joy derived from atheism, like many people seem to derive joy from a belief in god.

I guess the real question is this, in a more basic form:

Is it better to be blissfully ignorant, or to be depressingly informed??

I don't know about that. How about the joy of knowing when you've accomplished something that you're the one responsible and not some deity? Or the freedom that comes from understanding there are no rules handed down from on high; that you're free to live your life any way you want without fear of supernatural retribution?

The joy of knowing is palpable. Coming to a realization after alot of thought is empowering, emboldening, all of those things. And that's good.

But in the end, I would guess most people would be happier believing in god rather than accepting the world as-is.

There is often plenty of joy when the scales fall from the ex-believer's eyes and she learns to face reality without fear.

Just yanking your chain, nothing personal :)

It's like the "Mere Christianity" of simple theistic arguments. If you already believe, it's a humdinger. If you don't, well, it's a crock of crap.

A belief - or maybe more properly a need for understanding and a sense of order to both existance and society - may be natural.

The concept of a supernatural BEING with its organismic aspects - but supernatural powers - would fit as an explanation in the naturalistic world that early humans lived in. It need only be made more sophisticaed - and maybe more anthropomorphic - as civilization developed.

The god concept that started as a way of explaining the world could easily be exploited - and not necessarily in a bad way - as a moral justification for the development of law, social order, and ethics that evolved with society and civilization.

And how do you know that human beings are the only species that 'understands' (whatever you mean by that) our own mortality. Because we are the only ones that writes about it ?

I guess I don't know that other species don't understand their mortality, that is just an assumption on my part.

I sincerely doubt, though, that other animals understand death like we do.

Would it bother you if she bought you a bible for xmas?

This isn't really similar, though, since I've read alot of the bible already. She hasn't seen any of this movie, and she'll enjoy it

If you think it wouldn't offend her then do it. You would know better than anyone here. If you can release her from the confines of her "religion", then well done. If not, well it's her business anyway.

She goes to church most Sundays, but that's mainly because my great aunt needs to get a ride there.

She's definitely not a literal believer of the Bible, she's pretty open to other viewpoints, and she doesn't care that I'm an atheist.

It's more a general question. Would you, if you had the chance, want to "convert" someone??

Pretty obvious the popular answer is no.

You are not giving it to her to de-convert her.

You are sharing it with her, not proselytizing.

BIG difference.

...destination most would consider the bleakest and most inhospitable destination. Most cannot "wrap their minds" completely around atheism and if you push it on someone who's not ready for it, I honestly believe it could lead to severe depression if they accept it instead of coming to the conclusion in their own sweet time. Most minds cannot grasp a world where there is no invisible sky wizard to save and protect them.

The desire to believe in a helpful, invisible sky wizard increases as one approaches death. For some, that final push into oblivion is too much to ask their minds to imagine. The death of Self, the destruction of all- most people cannot go there nor would I ask them to. It's a truly frightful thing to most.

And so I would council that you not try to "convert" your mother. Faith-based religions are, at their heart, a coping mechanism so the mind never has to conceive of that ultimate death of self.

BTW, should a non-atheist read the above please do not misinterpret the "frank speaking" as some sort of condescension. None is meant.

I chose atheism (after being agnostic for a decade or so) because it is empirically evident. After some depression that there would be no palace of gold or any of the other posthumous fictions, I realized that if there was no sky wizard to ultimately bring goodness and justice into this world that it was up to me, and everyone else to do it. I rather like that responsibility.

PB

...that's pretty much how I feel too.

Atheism is very personal and individual, and each atheist arrives at that conclusion in their time, in their own way, based on their own life's experiences. There really is no way to "convert" someone to atheism, I guess. That's probably a good thing.

In what other ways would you rather leave the general populace in the dark??? Because this sort of thing can extend beyond religion, to other unsavory topics. Is it limited solely to religion, or can it extend to other things??

PB

The fact that christmas is just a commercial holiday, for example.

Many people like getting into the spirit of christmas, it makes them happy, and they are oblivious to the fact that companies are taking advantage of them with all the christmas commercials.

on edit- even commercials of other forms, at other times of the year. When I see a commercial, I immediately think about what the company is trying to do with it, what their ploy is, whether it will work, etc. I view it as a science. Most people just take the commercials at face value, and are "tricked" by them. They don't even consider the motive behind the commercial.

Covered that one here, more or less. I don't proselytize, because no one asks. If they make the mistake of asking, I give 'em an ear-full.

;-)

PB

I know for most areas of politics, we would say it is necessary to be informed, because we control the policy made in Washington. That's true, but ponder this.

I believe the WTC buildings were downed on 9/11 because of a controlled demolition. Now, most of you probably don't agree with me, but for the sake of discussion, just pretend that this is the case.

Assuming that the buildings were downed by a controlled demolition, would it be better to inform people, or let them continue to live assuming they fell as a result of a terrorist attack??

Knowing they were downed as a result of a demolition would be knowing that conspiracy took place, at multiple levels of government, and that that conpiracy knowingly killed thousands of innocent Americans. It is undoubtedly easier to live, thinking that we were attacked from abroad.

edit- and this conspiracy would not necessarily involve Bush. It could, but that's not a given. It would be more an indication of corruption of multiple levels of government, enough to murder thousands of people for money, and for war.

...and I explained to her that I took the better part of a year off to learn everything I could about this modern-day Pearl Harbor. Being a security consultant, it's feast or famine money wise and I can take all the time off I want if I can afford it. I believe that something grossly fishy went down that day, I'll leave it at that.

I answered her by asking her advice: "How do you live in a world where you have an opinion, based on your best empirical evaluation of a situation, which is regarded as nearly if not actually insane?" We had a good yuk about that one- sometimes it applies to so many things. I do not broadcast these opinions, using Galileo as my example. However, I occasionally run across some who have similar thoughts and let my guard down a bit if they take that first stab. The bummer is when I find out some really are crazy. And so it goes.

Anyway, assuming that you believed they were "pulled" and that the conspiracy existed I would keep quiet about it. It does you no good shouting that the sun is the center of the solar system if you choke on the smoke from the pyre you've been placed on. If anyone brings up 9/11/01 and talks about the buildings' collapse I'm sure to say things like "I've never seen buildings collapse like that" and, if the conversation drags on a bit, mention Building 7.

But, again, it's like the atheist thing. It reminds me of some creature from Lovecraft: you show too much of it at once to someone and they'll go insane.

PB

...the same as regarding atheism. Leave them in the dark.

While your analysis is sound, the conclusion really pisses me off. But, you are right, if I value my "freedom" it wouldn't be wise to be honest regarding this.

...thread. It practically makes my point for me though the poster may have been facetious. And yes, my conclusion pisses me off too but my experience tells me you may have achieved the wisdom of the world but the real test of wisdom is in deciding with whom to share it. And I advocate honesty in all things with yourself. Thankfully I have been blessed with a chance to be in Love with a woman who is very honest and receptive to honesty- even though it may sting from time to time. She is the exception, not the rule.

Look at the little dishonesties that are seemingly woven into every relationship. Are they necessary? Many would argue yes- sometimes dishonesty hides an awful or uncomfortable truth. I am grateful to have no need for little dishonesties in my personal relationship with this wonderful woman but with the rest of humanity (save my clients) I find it necessary, based on my experiences.

You are welcome to be as honest as you wish with the rest of humanity on every subject you feel important but history may save you time in describing the fates of others who have been equally free in sharing their beliefs.

PB

I was being facetious and damn nice about it too.

I can respect him and the fact that he chooses to believe in a conspiracy theory, but as a skeptic I regularly ridicule the conspiracy theorists who wander the internet claiming we're all too stupid to see their version of the truth the same way their earlier counterparts wandered around in parks proclaiming the end of the world while yelling at the voices in their heads.

They're fundamentalists of a different stripe.

...but you regularly ridicule people like me, because I'm just a fundamentalist of a different stripe.

Gotcha.

Are the rest of us too stupid to understand even though we've done the homework?

Or do you just have what you consider to be an informed opinion?

If the shoe fits...it belongs to a fundamentalist.

I'm not claiming anything.

Respect and ridicule don't really go together. Pick one.

You're either one or the other.

I can respect an informed liberal believer, I can't respect a fundamentalist that thinks atheists are immoral.

I ridicule the second.

Can you see the distinction there?

...but I'm not sure if the distinction was intended, or created after the fact when you re-read your post.

I could have written you off right away.

And I might have if you hadn't already shown that you are capable of critical thought.

You just met me but do you honestly think I mince my words?

Please.

...to some extent.

And frankly, I'm insulted that you think I do.

Look, I know a lot more about this particular type than you do, trust me.

Several people have done a lot of research about the kind of paranoid conspiracy theorists who claim to "know the truth" and stalk those that disagree with them.

If you're not one of them, then you're cool with me.

If you still choose to be offended, so be it.

And I was just getting to like you, too. :P

...for truth to religion. I search for it everywhere.

You should too.

I've done the research.

Whether or not you think those bubbles are healthy.

That's why none of us should ever attempt to convert friends and relatives to anything.

That doesn't mean that we can't remind Calvinists of the words of Jesus as written in the New Testament and remind them that they're supporting a gang with an agenda that is directly opposite to what he preached.

You see, they already know this and it troubles them greatly. Reminding them that we know it, too, may allow them to break some of their own mental chains.

Don't force anyone to change their beliefs, just remind them that no religion has been proven.

A belief in god is not healthy. A belief in god is motivated by many factors. The most common is out of ignorance, not to be confused with a lack of intelligence. I think most people believe in a god because they lack formal education, never exposed to rational, skeptical thinking. There are many educated individuals which hold religious beliefs, what is the motivator? For some it is narcissism, how could the universe dare to condemn them to oblivion, existence must go on. The prime motivator is fear. Fear of death, fear of the reality that when we die there is nothing else, no god, no afterlife, no 72 virgins, no fleshy cherubs plucking harps on a fluffy white cloud. Your back to where you came from, nothing.

The fairy tail fantasy of a god helps people? How so? I read in the news recently about a death row inmate, many on this board were looking for his death. "He will be judged by a higher power", "it is out of our hands, god will make the final judgment."

I wonder, if everyone realized that there was no god, if this was our only life, to kill another human being had such utterly permanent consequences, would humans be so quick to kill? As an atheist I think that murder is the worst crime a human can commit, however, I think that murdering another for that crime is a position only a religious person can take. Belief in a higher power absolves the individual of the guilt of killing. Religious zealots of all types rationalize the killing, god will judge, no final act has been committed, a soul survives.

This is all we have, a few brief years in the scope of the universe, if you are looking for an absolute moral position it is that humans should not kill other humans. The bible states in the ten commandments that 'thou shall not kill.' Yet, the rationalization that god will be the final judge allows believers to take human life with astonishing abandon.

However, I dare you to imagine a world where everyone is an atheist. I don't think it would be good.

Right now, pretty much every atheist comes to that decision on their own, after looking inward, outward, and examining things. So, most atheists are smart, thoughtful individuals. That's what I think, anyway.

If I were to snap my fingers and make everyone, regardless of intellect or curiosity, an atheist, I think anarchy would be the end result. For many people, god is why they do things. Fear of retribution is a powerful motivator.

I agree with you that religion, in many ways, is very bad for society. But the mere fact that, in an age of unprecedented science and tolerance for non-believers, the vast majority still profess a belief in god, indicates to me that these people are not ready to be faced with reality.

For that reason alone, I think religion is necessary. It's all speculation of course though.

I consider all points when I post and try to anticipate responses, limits the number of times I look like a complete jackass. Most often I am just a half jackass. ;) I anticipated your response and held back pending further reflection.

The premise, without god, people will not fear eternal damnation and act immorally, free from judgment. You can base this argument on history, before the Christan god you had the romans, life was cheap, as an example consider the gladiatorial games, battles to the death for the enjoyment of the masses.

Is religion necessary for one to be moral? No, but do the majority of humans need religion to be moral? I would argue in the negative. I think society has evolved to the point where religion could be abolished and a cultural moral behavior will be sustained through generations. Is this true for all human populations on the planet, no. Remove god from a population which lacks education and social support systems which breed a stable human environment and you will be payed back in chaos.

Fear is a powerful motivator? Realize that this is the only life you will have, upon death you fade into nothing. Make the best of it. Fear is powerful, but rationalization is more so. You have had your fear to control society for two thousand years yet history is replete with carnage and destruction.

I think that a healthy society functions not based on whether it is religious or not, but upon tolerance and respect for the individual. A society of atheists and believers, gays and straights, multiple ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, the bottom line being respect, tolerance, we are all human.

Your argument assumes that average believers are intelligent enough to come to grips with reality. I don't believe that to be the case. I think most people, of average intelligence and worse, would go insane if we somehow injected the fact that there is no God into their brain somewhere.

I really think that. Of course its all speculation, but I have visions of people running around screaming aimlessly, sobbing in anguish all day long. I don't think they could take it.

My hair dresser. No seriously. I have a kind of therapy session every time I get a hair cut, we discuss politics, religion, etc. He always tells me, the average human being is an idiot. He may be correct, and you may be as well. However, consider that the average person a thousand years ago is vastly different from an average person today. Religion still exists, but the human animal is improving.

Education is the key, a society which places education at the forefront in social responsibility is a society which will see much less unrest. Belief in a god is irrational, a rational mind requires evidence, the scientific method, faith is an irrational concept. Do not read irrational as crazy, that is not what I am suggesting.

You are correct, if you suddenly removed religion as a crutch, the void would leave many destitute. The key is to guide society from a religious perspective to a scientific perspective. I disagree with my hair dresser on the notion that the average human is an idiot, which suggests that they are beyond the capability for learning, I think the average person can learn, and in the proper environment most people could accept a secular world.

As for your visions of sobbing and screaming, try not to eat chocolate before bedtime, it is the chocolate, always the chocolate.

:evilgrin: On edit, damn forgot the evil grin ;)

"You have had your fear to control society for two thousand years yet history is replete with carnage and destruction."

God-believers have been in the majority for pretty much all of human existence - do we really think things would get WORSE if we were all atheists?

anyone. It is pointless (there are unending hordes of them, few of us), and, I believe, cruel. If they come to our point of view on their own, fine, but I am not going to shatter someone's beliefs ....