Faith vs UnFaith IV

[El-ahrairah]

I refuse the premise. They do nothing but harm.

If your premise were true, then yes, I would try to help them see reason. People have a right to know the truth.

Traditionally, the missionary impulse of religion is to save the heathen from being tormented day and night for ever and ever in a lake of fire and bring them to everlasting bliss, which (were it true) would certainly make those converted happy.

But here the missionary impulse of atheism seems to not be caring about the feelings of those converted, but only about atheists proving themselves right. "People have a right to know the truth." Very well, I'll accept that. But what if they don't want to avail themselves of said right? Maybe what you really want is not for the hoodwinked faithful to receive enlightenment, but for the side-effects of religion - racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and all those other 'phobias and 'isms you sneer at - to come to an end. If there was a religion without any of these things, why would you assail it?

Assume for a moment that religion and secularism have identical rules for earthly moral conduct. If religion is true, you might stand to lose something if you're wrong. But if atheism is true, and you still live a happy life without bothering anyone else, what exactly do you lose by believing?

[kiko]

Assume for a moment that religion and secularism have identical rules for earthly moral conduct. If religion is true, you might stand to lose something if you're wrong. But if atheism is true, and you still live a happy life without bothering anyone else, what exactly do you lose by believing?

Assuming that secularism is relevant for things like moral concepts, this concept would also have to inlcude that it is okay to lie - to yourself and to others.

[Eurytus]

No more than are those of Dawkins...

Random question: Assuming that all religions are packs of lies that nonetheless do no harm, and if they bring happiness to their adherents while losing faith would bring them misery, would any try to de-convert them?

Assuming?

[Stego]

Traditionally, the missionary impulse of religion is to save the heathen from being tormented day and night for ever and ever in a lake of fire and bring them to everlasting bliss

That's an outright fucking LIE. The purpose of a missionary is to bring more people and therefore more funds into the church. That is all it has ever been about.

The Atheist wants to share reason for no reason other than they want to live in a reasonable world surrounded by reasonable people making decisions based upon the world we live in, not a mythical one purported to be at the end of the rainbow bridge.

If religion is true, you might stand to lose something if you're wrong. But if atheism is true, and you still live a happy life without bothering anyone else, what exactly do you lose by believing?

Giving up your right to reason and independent thought because of Pascal's Wager is the saddest thing imaginable. You're smart enough to question, but too cowardly to admit to what you see.

[El-ahrairah]

Assuming that secularism is relevant for things like moral concepts, this concept would also have to inlcude that it is okay to lie - to yourself and to others.

In this example, it's hardly lying if you think it's true.

Assuming?

I'm not saying it's true (I know it's not). But what if it were?

That's an outright fucking LIE. The purpose of a missionary is to bring more people and therefore more funds into the church. That is all it has ever been about.

The Atheist wants to share reason for no reason other than they want to live in a reasonable world surrounded by reasonable people making decisions based upon the world we live in, not a mythical one purported to be at the end of the rainbow bridge.

I'm sure some missionaries are motivated by money, just as I'm sure some Marxists were motivated by power and not the Glorious Destiny of the Proletariat. But it's a pretty uncharitable thing to assume every preacher from St. Paul down has been faking it. :P

I want to convert you, because I want us to play our harps together on a fluffy white cloud forever, to use the traditional imagery. Am I an outright ******* liar?

Giving up your right to reason and independent thought because of Pascal's Wager is the saddest thing imaginable. You're smart enough to question, but too cowardly to admit to what you see.

This is not Pascal's Wager, which I don't agree with at all. What I'm saying is religious conversion has a good reason behind it, while (in the abstract sense) atheistic conversion does not.

[Stego]

I'm sure some missionaries are motivated by money, just as I'm sure some Marxists were motivated by power and not the Glorious Destiny of the Proletariat. But it's a pretty uncharitable thing to assume every preacher from St. Paul down has been faking it. :P

Not every Preacher. I'm talking about the organization. I realize that some people actually believe this nonsense and I bet they make good soldiers, but I don't imagine you can rise very high in a church if you drink the kool aid. It just doesn't make good business sense.

And that's what Churches are.

I want to convert you, because I want us to play our harps together on a fluffy white cloud forever, to use the traditional imagery. Am I an outright ******* liar?

I don't believe you. Not any part of that sentence. :D

This is not Pascal's Wager, which I don't agree with at all. What I'm saying is religious conversion has a good reason behind it, while (in the abstract sense) atheistic conversion does not.

Religious conversion has money making behind it and atheistic conversion has reason for the sake of a world free from lies behind it. Why can't you see that? Religion leads to war and death and subjugation. No matter what the religion pretends to teach, it always ends up as a way to keep women down. Your text can say peace all it wants, but it always leads to war. Islam is a religion of peace, but that does not stop Islamic terrorists. Judaism is a religion of peace, but that does not stop the attacks on Palestine. Jesus purportedly told us to love our neighbor, but the US is putting biblical quotes on our nations sniper rifles.

I can't and don't attempt to speak for all atheists, but for me? I hope that people can open up to reason and rational thought so we can find a way to get on without killing each other, destroying our enviornment, and shitting on each other to make money.

[Stalker]

That's an outright fucking LIE.

The purpose of a missionary is to bring more people and therefore more funds into the church. That is all it has ever been about.

And you have evidence for this vast conspiracy?

[Stalker]

No more than are those of Dawkins...

The fallacy Dawkins is engaging in is an equivalence fallacy, not a strawman fallacy.

[Stalker]

Assume for a moment that religion and secularism have identical rules for earthly moral conduct. If religion is true, you might stand to lose something if you're wrong. But if atheism is true, and you still live a happy life without bothering anyone else, what exactly do you lose by believing?

This is Pascal's Wager. The problem with it is of course that if is a false dichotomy. You can in now way show that your conception of god and it's rules are the only possible. Consider this:What if god loves atheists and being an atheist is in fact the only way to get into heaven?

[El-ahrairah]

This is Pascal's Wager. The problem with it is of course that if is a false dichotomy. You can in now way show that your conception of god and it's rules are the only possible. Consider this:What if god loves atheists and being an atheist is in fact the only way to get into heaven?

As was aforesaid, it's not Pascal's Wager!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:)

I'm not saying why an atheist ought to convert. I'm saying why an atheist has no reason to de-convert those who do believe, so long as this belief harms no one.

[Stalker]

As was aforesaid, it's not Pascal's Wager!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:)

I'm not saying why an atheist ought to convert. I'm saying why an atheist has no reason to de-convert those who do believe, so long as this belief harms no one.

OK, I hadn't read your rejection of it when I posted. Sorry about that. It still does look a lot like it to me.

But answer this then: What is it you think that would prevent an atheist from wanting to convert?

[TrueMetis]

Traditionally, the missionary impulse of religion is to save the heathen from being tormented day and night for ever and ever in a lake of fire and bring them to everlasting bliss, which (were it true) would certainly make those converted happy.

:shocked: What? Since when has that been want missionaries have been about? I always thought they were about forcing people to believe what they believe. See anywhere missionariea have ever been. Doesn't often end up good for the locals.

[Watcher]

As was aforesaid, it's not Pascal's Wager!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:)

I'm not saying why an atheist ought to convert. I'm saying why an atheist has no reason to de-convert those who do believe, so long as this belief harms no one.

I agree with this.

But we do come to a head when religious beliefs harm people. Such as why can't I buy beer on Sunday in many states? Why can't two men have sex together? Why can't two women marry? Why I can't I blasphemy? Why do women have to be covered from head to toe? The answer to all of those question is because someone wrote some words in a book over 4,000 years ago. Why should people have to obey stupid laws like those if they don't follow your faith.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

:shocked: What? Since when has that been want missionaries have been about? I always thought they were about forcing people to believe what they believe. See anywhere missionariea have ever been. Doesn't often end up good for the locals.

As opposed to what, the efforts of colonialists and imperialists? The missionary movement was not as malign nor negative as you make it out to be for the local peoples. There are places where missionaries proved to have bad intentions. But in some cases, the missionaries were the advocates for the local peoples against the colonial state's imperial powers. Most missionaries, however, do not force the local populations to believe. The missionary movement in the 19th century more often then not worked with local peoples and served as a sort of precursor to the Peace Corps.