Well, I hear you ... but ...
occasionally there is a smart one such as you
Why thank you.
you sometimes do stretch things to make it sound like theism has won an arguement that hasn't even happened
Nope ... I'm waiting for the atheists to catch up so we can have that argument.
The thing is that atheists need to realize: if you challenge one of the many stupid people, you
freeze the issue, and make it a focal point. Human nature being what it is, that's a horrible point for someone to make a stand on pride. But many religious people do.
Watch the various Christian wars get out of hand. Christians misrepresent Christians, the opposition lashes back, nailing all of Christianity, and suddenly Christians who weren't paying attention in the first place and may not actually support the issue at hand are in the fight because they feel some public manifestation has lashed out at them. Practical example? OCA goes after gays, community responds with frustration over Christian intrusion into people's lives (press, medicine, religious freedom itself) ... and suddenly thousands of Christians who wouldn't have given the OCA the time of day are onboard and arguing a very petty, very stupid issue that may become a fairly defining moment for them.
One of the saddest things I see in atheism is that atheists tend to miss a certain idea that religious people are in on. Now, whether those religious people are in on it correctly is its own issue. But ...
Is it possible for an atheist to deal with a religious person in any terms other than religion? It would seem so. For instance, I generally push people
away from religions; I cannot recall actively pushing anyone toward one. Well, maybe a couple of reckless Satanic advocacies a few years back, and maybe a couple of excitable moments as a witch. But I'm not about to tell someone to pray about it and leave the situation at that. Such a resolution is irresponsible and without compassion toward legitimate human needs. Where God comes into it, I take it out of that context. When all is said and done, what I do with those ideas pertaining to God will have a
permanent effect on how that individual views God.
If it came right down to it, I could destroy people's confidence in their religion faster than any atheist can. Why? Because in addition to whining about religion for a good portion of my life, I've learned how to observe religion as a functional principle in people's lives. That is, I know what works better than an atheist. I know how to manipulate religious ideas better than an atheist. And I can get better functional results in "converting" someone away from a religion than
any atheist on the face of the planet.
Why? A few reasons, at least.
• I have no stake in disproving God. Therefore I can communicate on an equal term, not from an assumption of authority.
• I understand religious sentiment and psychology better. Simple rules of familiarity support such an assertion.
• I'm in on what atheists are not: the presumption of compassion.
This last point is the vital one. It's not a matter of supremacy to me; it's a matter of people's happiness and how they feel. If someone is legitimately happy and not harming others, I have no right to interfere in how they view the world. But if someone is harming others, I have an obligation to interfere. If someone is unhappy or harming themselves, it is
a presumption of compassion that compels me to interfere. I do not accept unhappiness for myself, nor will I accept it in others. If that unhappiness is brought by the disease of ignorance, for instance, as is common among many religious believers, I should go forth to heal the disease with compassion. I should not work to reduce the sick, but to augment them.
Now admittedly many religious folk get the presumption of compassion all snarled up into something beyond recognition, but at least it's there. I'm not so sure about atheism, and the evidence for the legitimacy of that doubt comes from the seemingly eternal hostility atheists show religions.
Understand them, don't hate them. If you understand them they'll go away quicker. I don't get why nobody's figured that out. I mean, I know why the religious people haven't figured that out. But the atheists ... man, I don't know. It really seems
that obvious.
In the meantime, if the atheist wallows in the superstitious shallows of the religion, what can he or she expect but the simplest, most superstitious, most ignorant and assumptive religion possible?
If 99.9% of theists are sick with it, then heal them. For God's sake, man ... er, I mean ....
I mean, take a look at
Notme2000 and
Zero's characterizations. Take a look at the contempt that even other of our beloved Sciforums' atheists show religion. Great. We know you guys are atheists. Could you all try being useful with it, so to speak? It's getting a little hard when the broadminded theists trying to fix the situation have to shout to be heard over the voices of scorn and condemnation. Many of us know much about theistic idiocies, and probably even more than the atheists. But it's really quite hard to communicate with the narrowly religious when they spend their time worrying about the guy over there who's calling them stupid.
Understand: as an atheist, I found God to be too important; that is, for being an atheist, thinking about God took up an awful lot of my time.
Once I found a definition of God that my integrity required me to accept, everything got easier. God is considerably less important an issue.
Atheists simply need to get to know the religions they oppose better. They'll learn a tremendous lot about their declared enemy, and even more about human nature in general. I'm not saying anyone has to believe a word of what they're reading or hearing. But it would be helpful if atheists treated theistic ideas as something other than platforms upon which to be poseurs.
thanx much,
Tiassa