I believe those of us who are mature non-believers need a thread of our own where we can dissect such things as the role of the church in American society and the like, as a minority in a sea of proselytizers, and so here it is. I am too tired and too busy to go into anything in depth right now, but one thing I'd like to post about, following Dawkins, is why atheists need to fear *giving offense* to believers, especially those of us who are non-believers in purportedly liberal societies.
Post away! No offense given to this Christian in a liberal society.
Who says atheists aren't proselytizers too?
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
I have to agree with Walter, I am a Christian, and frankly I haven't met any atheists that were worried about "giving offense", but as Virgil mentions, they were too busy spreading the word and were not worried a bit about offending anyone.
Frankly it's immaterial to me what anyone believes as long as they don't try to rub my face in it, or call me uninformed or stupid for what I believe.
Well said Jane. I agree entirely.Originally Posted by plainjane
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
I think there is a difference between atheism and media atheism. Many atheists follow the Dawkinsian creed, and really are just as ignorant as some religious zealots. On the other hand, most atheists I know care nothing about any pompousness, and simply just don't believe in a deity.
I think atheist is fashionable, no? mer
I am not sure what you mean by ignorant here. Rude and shallow individuals come in all stripes; if you mean less than educated, that is something else. Dawkins readily admits his primary onus is on Christianity (as would be mine) because we cannot know all theology or be experts on all types of religions.
Let me make a distinction: I do not mean, by use of the word *offense*, disparagement of a particular believer. What I do mean is, if I make observations on the basis of experience which may cause discomfort, those observations are more than likely to draw complaints--whereas, someone like myself might be expected to let an evangelical who is pontificating slide--which I normally do even if the hypothetical sermonizing might offend me. I see that as a double standard--at least when we are all in one virtual community together.
Hence, I think we non-believers should carve out a space for ourselves, and this I've done.
It's funny because you made a thread for atheists, and the next several responses were from theists. I figured that I should break the trend.
Hell is other people.
~Jean-Paul Sartre, "No Exit"
I'm waiting to hear the first thing yet that you have been afraid to utter all these years for fear of causing discomfort. I promise not to be uncomfortable.
Utter away!
I was struck by the original poster's phrase "...why atheists need to fear *giving offense* to believers..."
I would think that the real question is why believers "take offense" with atheists and their critical attitude.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
And I am waiting to hear some personal substance put on either of those propositions by the original poster, or you, instead of just echoing Dawkins' complaints.
I'll re-cite to you the example of a Christian who does NOT take offense at atheists, namely myself. Atheists and all they have to say are not a new phenomenon by any means. As far as I'm concerned it has all been heard before, through two millennia in fact, and is a tired worn-out topic. But carry on with your second-hand stories. I'm all ears.
I think he just means that Dawkins is a fanatical zealot that instead of worshiping God is worshiping the non-God. What makes Religiousity ignorance is the form it is used to impose beliefs and that is exactly what Dawkins was doing. He is out of his field (science) and stopped being a humanist like a certain Darwin, who damaged the belief in God more than Dawkins will ever do. It reminds me of atheism derived from communist states. It was a matter of creed and belief and not lack of it.
If there is a corner for atheists I propose the exclusion of Dawkins and that deists are allowed in.
I think that road can go both ways, but as a Christian I have to say that I don't really understand why anyone would take offense at someone else's beliefs. I might wish the other person's beliefs were different, more on a line with my own, but really in the final analysis, it's no skin off of my nose what anyone believes, it is their prerogative to believe as they wish, as it is mine.
What you say is correct though and might be partially because sometimes some atheists are rather militant in their stance, so that is the believers automatic response to it. I know and agree that can go both ways too.
Being kind, one could say that both parties, the atheist and the believer only want the best for the other person, and egotistically believe that their way is the right way.
Or you could say they wish to dominate the other side.
As to your original question, I wonder if insecurity in one's self is the key to that reaction. Either an insecurity in thmeselves, or their beliefs, or as I said a simply militant/domineering attitude.
To quote Rhett Butler, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
But it's an awfully interesting puzzle all the same.
Last edited by plainjane; 08-15-2008 at 09:22 AM.
If someone is a believer-- really, really believes-- then God is the most important thing in the universe. It follows that the nature of this God is quintessentially important. How then can it be a matter of indifference when others deny God, or reject the true God in favor of false ones?as a Christian I have to say that I don't really understand why anyone would take offense at someone else's beliefs. I might wish the other person's beliefs were different, more on a line with my own, but really in the final analysis, it's no skin off of my nose what anyone believes, it is their prerogative to believe as they wish
The idea of kinder, gentler religious belief is an admirable one but I don't see any logic behind it. The idea of religious tolerance isn't a theological concept-- it is a secular one, a practical compromise made necessary by the material advantages of trading, commerce with people from different cultures.
Posting Permissions
