Me: those who are trying to prove religion wrong for the sake of it are so irritating.
You: if i try and prove religion wrong, it isn't "for the sake of it" - it's because i think it is wrong and that the truth actually matters.
You'll notice I didn't say everyone is doing it for the sake of it - just that those who do are annoying. I'm not accusing you of anything and actually find it a little confusing that you've read anything resembling it from what I consider a fairly clearly-worded statement. All I'm saying is that I've very, very rarely come across theists who try to convince someone of God because they're being ornery - almost all theists who've tried to convert someone in my presence have done so because they believe it's what will 'save' that person. Misguided? Some might think so. Still, to me it's sweet and even noble, even if it can come across terribly obnoxious and patronizing. By contrast, I've come across many an atheist who will try to prove religion wrong for the sake of somehow proving themselves intellectually superior, for their own sense of moral righteousness, or - if you'll excuse this turn of phrase - to ~be hip~.
What I'm saying is that - whilst I have acknowledged and will acknowledge again that lots of atheists try to 'convert' people for the sake of truth and science and progress and other equally-noble things - I've come across significantly more atheists who try to prove their point for the sole sake of being right or superior, than I have any theists doing the same. I don't think one is necessarily more acceptable than the other and certainly neither is less annoying than the other, but between the two motives, I know which one I prefer.
I don't know. Maybe this is just something that has occured disproportionately more in my presence than in yours.
obviously i can't speak to your experience. people don't try to convert me very often, one way or the other.
i objected to the statement "pushy atheists are just as bad as if not worse than pushy religious people", because i do strongly disagree.
it's obviously a subjective judgement, but i personally find pushy religious people pretty damn offensive. i think it's deeply presumptuous to tell someone that you are going to "save" them, and a lot of the most pushy people are the "you'll burn in hell" variety. which i find deeply morally disturbing. and plenty of this type also are more interested in their own superiority and rightness than in notions of charity.
and, of course, i've never met a single atheist who tried to convince someone for the reasons you've mentioned. i believe they exist, but i'm having to imagine it as i've never experienced it.
of course, it may be it's just because i happen to agree with the other side. so i'm biased.
Don't get me wrong; I think there's something deeply offensive about someone saying, for example, "Jesus is life", to a known atheist, because the insinuation is "and you do not know life". Trying to convert anyone to anything is inherently patronizing because rarely is it done with openness to the view that the other person might actually be right or know more than you. That said, I think you're right; we're each biased by our own sides. When someone asks me if I've been saved I can say "that's sweet, but yes, actually, I have" whereas you might (and be within your rights to) find it rude. By contrast, when an atheist tries to prove to me that God doesn't exist I will often get frustrated and ask why it matters so much to them what I believe in, since they're clearly not trying to save my eternal soul, whereas you... I don't know, might have a really good discussion with them instead.
Obviously my inherent bias lends to me finding pushy atheists more annoying than pushy religious people, and you vice versa. For me the key difference is why they're doing it. For a theist who converts an atheist, that's another soul saved. You may not agree to this objectively, but it's certainly how they think about it. By contrast, I can never quite understand why atheists are so adament about trying to convince me God doesn't exist. I believe in evolution, am a vehement supporter of the right of choice, and don't have anything against gay marriage, et cetera - and so I don't think it's a matter of trying to bring progress to societal attitudes. The only outcome I can think of to me suddenly becoming an atheist is that my atheist friend will be able to say "oh, see, I'm right!" and that, to me, is just... not a particularly admirable purpose. Like I said, though - we both come from points of view of strong bias, and it sounds like we've had experiences with very different types of people. It could be that you read something completely different from a situation like this, which you are of course entitled to do.
Heh, pardon my delay in replying to this facinating discussion, I was watching Datenshi ;)
I think zealots on both sides of the theist/atheist debate are equally obnoxious, and pushing one's opinions on others is rather reprehensible. Personally I feel we should all be able to sit down, shut up and get along, but I also realize there is something in the human condition that prevents that. I think it's the need to be 'right', when I'm not sure that one can be right on such things.
Things can be true and not true at the same time. There are folk who have problems with this concept.
Personally my issue with atheist zealotry versus theist zealotry is that most of the religious zealots I've encountered are easy to write off because they're often stupid or at least grossly misinformed about their own religion. I'm talking Bible thumpers who quote passages without having read the full Bible, or even the passages around what they're quoting. People who get their ideas and opinions only from their pastors and talk radio. Maybe it's my own intellectual elitism speaking, but while such folk annoy me, they don't trouble me.
The atheist zealots on the other hand tend to be educated, some very highly educated. I can't dismiss them out of hand because of that. But so much of the argument I see is them saying 'if you're theist, you're stupid'. And, having dealt with the sort of theist zealots I mentioned above, I can understand the mindset. But personally, I find it annoying to be painted with that same brush. I don't like being told I'm stupid by anyone, especially for something that has as little bearing on who I am, intellectually, as my religion.
Amusingly, while writing this, I've got Komu angst-singing "God, answer me!" in my head
or, every time a theist converts someone, reason is set back a little more, and one more person is out there encouraging people to waste their time and energy on religion, and teaching their children to do the same.
and every time an atheist convinces someone a little more progress is made for reason and truth, and the evils of religion are pushed back a little more. children are now more likely to be raised without unnecessary superstitions that are more likely to do them harm than good.
i have tried to be a bit black and white here, to get the point across. but i think it is unfair to say one side is inherently 'worse' than the other, as it's got a lot more to do with which side you are on.
my general feeling is, it's only an argument worth having if there is someone to convince. sometimes that someone is a third party whose watching (e.g. the point of having public debates even sometimes on internet forums - though abuse isn't necessarily very effective!), sometimes it's the person you're actually speaking to. i tend not to get into with friends and family because neither of the above conditions is satisfied, and i don't see the point in upsetting people.
unless you're having an intellectual discussion. that's just fun!
You: if i try and prove religion wrong, it isn't "for the sake of it" - it's because i think it is wrong and that the truth actually matters.
You'll notice I didn't say everyone is doing it for the sake of it - just that those who do are annoying. I'm not accusing you of anything and actually find it a little confusing that you've read anything resembling it from what I consider a fairly clearly-worded statement. All I'm saying is that I've very, very rarely come across theists who try to convince someone of God because they're being ornery - almost all theists who've tried to convert someone in my presence have done so because they believe it's what will 'save' that person. Misguided? Some might think so. Still, to me it's sweet and even noble, even if it can come across terribly obnoxious and patronizing. By contrast, I've come across many an atheist who will try to prove religion wrong for the sake of somehow proving themselves intellectually superior, for their own sense of moral righteousness, or - if you'll excuse this turn of phrase - to ~be hip~.
What I'm saying is that - whilst I have acknowledged and will acknowledge again that lots of atheists try to 'convert' people for the sake of truth and science and progress and other equally-noble things - I've come across significantly more atheists who try to prove their point for the sole sake of being right or superior, than I have any theists doing the same. I don't think one is necessarily more acceptable than the other and certainly neither is less annoying than the other, but between the two motives, I know which one I prefer.
I don't know. Maybe this is just something that has occured disproportionately more in my presence than in yours.
Reply
i objected to the statement "pushy atheists are just as bad as if not worse than pushy religious people", because i do strongly disagree.
it's obviously a subjective judgement, but i personally find pushy religious people pretty damn offensive. i think it's deeply presumptuous to tell someone that you are going to "save" them, and a lot of the most pushy people are the "you'll burn in hell" variety. which i find deeply morally disturbing. and plenty of this type also are more interested in their own superiority and rightness than in notions of charity.
and, of course, i've never met a single atheist who tried to convince someone for the reasons you've mentioned. i believe they exist, but i'm having to imagine it as i've never experienced it.
of course, it may be it's just because i happen to agree with the other side. so i'm biased.
Reply
Obviously my inherent bias lends to me finding pushy atheists more annoying than pushy religious people, and you vice versa. For me the key difference is why they're doing it. For a theist who converts an atheist, that's another soul saved. You may not agree to this objectively, but it's certainly how they think about it. By contrast, I can never quite understand why atheists are so adament about trying to convince me God doesn't exist. I believe in evolution, am a vehement supporter of the right of choice, and don't have anything against gay marriage, et cetera - and so I don't think it's a matter of trying to bring progress to societal attitudes. The only outcome I can think of to me suddenly becoming an atheist is that my atheist friend will be able to say "oh, see, I'm right!" and that, to me, is just... not a particularly admirable purpose. Like I said, though - we both come from points of view of strong bias, and it sounds like we've had experiences with very different types of people. It could be that you read something completely different from a situation like this, which you are of course entitled to do.
Reply
I think zealots on both sides of the theist/atheist debate are equally obnoxious, and pushing one's opinions on others is rather reprehensible. Personally I feel we should all be able to sit down, shut up and get along, but I also realize there is something in the human condition that prevents that. I think it's the need to be 'right', when I'm not sure that one can be right on such things.
Things can be true and not true at the same time. There are folk who have problems with this concept.
Personally my issue with atheist zealotry versus theist zealotry is that most of the religious zealots I've encountered are easy to write off because they're often stupid or at least grossly misinformed about their own religion. I'm talking Bible thumpers who quote passages without having read the full Bible, or even the passages around what they're quoting. People who get their ideas and opinions only from their pastors and talk radio. Maybe it's my own intellectual elitism speaking, but while such folk annoy me, they don't trouble me.
The atheist zealots on the other hand tend to be educated, some very highly educated. I can't dismiss them out of hand because of that. But so much of the argument I see is them saying 'if you're theist, you're stupid'. And, having dealt with the sort of theist zealots I mentioned above, I can understand the mindset. But personally, I find it annoying to be painted with that same brush. I don't like being told I'm stupid by anyone, especially for something that has as little bearing on who I am, intellectually, as my religion.
Amusingly, while writing this, I've got Komu angst-singing "God, answer me!" in my head
Reply
and every time an atheist convinces someone a little more progress is made for reason and truth, and the evils of religion are pushed back a little more. children are now more likely to be raised without unnecessary superstitions that are more likely to do them harm than good.
i have tried to be a bit black and white here, to get the point across. but i think it is unfair to say one side is inherently 'worse' than the other, as it's got a lot more to do with which side you are on.
my general feeling is, it's only an argument worth having if there is someone to convince. sometimes that someone is a third party whose watching (e.g. the point of having public debates even sometimes on internet forums - though abuse isn't necessarily very effective!), sometimes it's the person you're actually speaking to. i tend not to get into with friends and family because neither of the above conditions is satisfied, and i don't see the point in upsetting people.
unless you're having an intellectual discussion. that's just fun!
Reply
Leave a comment