It's not always rational to deny god's existence

skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
It's not always rational to deny god's existence

would you be open to the idea that it's not always rational to deny God's existence?

How about the grieving Christian mother whose kids just died in a car accident?  If you were her friend, would you initiate conversation with her about how irrational belief in God is?  Or would you judge it more rational to let her believe what she needs to believe?  Would you want a Christian to start proclaiming the gospel to you after your own kids just died in a car wreck?  I guess it's not always time to disprove God, is it?

Are you prepared to agree that religion might be a naturalistic evolutionary construct?

When you sleep, you dream.  Dreams are the very antithesis of reality, but they are still necessary to maintaining good health when you are awake.  Going without sleep and dreaming only hurts your conscious capcity to reason effectively, right?

Some people cannot handle cold hard reality, and honestly need their religion to have happiness, such as people who have endured great trauma, or old people.

Sometimes I sing gospel tunes at assisted living and convalescent homes on Sundays.  I lie to them all and tell them I am a Christian, and I have a bible and good memory to support that lie.  I can talk more like a Christian than some Christians.  I make many elderly and sick people happy, as the gospel tunes are opportunities to talk about other stuff, usually about them.  Their problem is not theism, but lonliness.  Sometimes lying is a higher moral to follow than blasting everybody and everything with cold hard reality 24 hours a day.

In my opinion, it is not rational to deny God's existence when you are dealing with theists who are near hopelessness.  The fact that something is reality, doesn't necessarily mean it's good to foist it on everybody all the time.

All the good times I caused for those old folks would be missed had I said I'm actually an atheist.  They would irrationally worry that I was on my way to hell, and probably take more time trying to save me from hell, than in happily relating stories about their earlier life.

My lie helps cure their loneliness, so I become a Christian for a few hours on certain Sunday's, and the benefits of this lie in this context greatly outweigh the problems that would start if I was honest with these feeble people about what I really believe.  They can feel the Holy Spirit moving through my singing and fellowship if they think I'm a Christian, and they wouldn't enjoy themselves at all if they knew the truth.

So would you agree that indulging somebody's delusions is sometimes the more rational thing to do?

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote:How about

skepticdude wrote:

How about the grieving Christian mother whose kids just died in a car accident?  If you were her friend, would you initiate conversation with her about how irrational belief in God is? 

I agree that this would not be a good idea at the time.

skepticdude wrote:
Some people cannot handle cold hard reality, and honestly need their religion to have happiness, such as people who have endured great trauma, or old people.

I'm not out to take faith from old people who are never going to change their ways. Yes, I want to stop theism.The way to do this is engage and debate the youth and even the middle aged, not get into arguments with the old lady down the street who like the socialising at church.

skepticdude wrote:

My lie helps cure their loneliness, so I become a Christian for a few hours on certain Sunday's, and the benefits of this lie in this context greatly outweigh the problems that would start if I was honest with these feeble people about what I really believe.  They can feel the Holy Spirit moving through my singing and fellowship if they think I'm a Christian, and they wouldn't enjoy themselves at all if they knew the truth.

What you do is admirable.However,from my personal expericences and not great deconversion,I would never pretend to be a christian. I find the idea rather repulsive. Yes, it wouldn't make them happy. But it would make me far less happy to pretend to the point where I would be unable to continue. Would you pretend to be a child molester to help convicts?(Probably not the best example,but you get the idea)

skepticdude wrote:
So would you agree that indulging somebody's delusions is sometimes the more rational thing to do?

Despite what theits and some atheists seem to think,we don't won't to drag people into the street and deconvert them at gunpoint.Of course many people live their lives with their faith,are happy, and don't hurt anyone. When that faith starts becoming a danger,that's when it's rational

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It is ALWAYS rational to

It is ALWAYS rational to believe that there is any real evidence for God's existence.

If you mean by 'deny' actually speaking out to someone that it is irrational to believe in God, that is a different issue, of when it might be appropriate in the circumstances.

'Rationality' is involved in the sense that you need to rationally consider whether speaking in certain ways, raising certain topics, in speaking with other people is likely to cause unnecessary distress or anger, or is it justifiable to cause someone distress in the short term if there is reason to believe it might shake them out of a belief which you have reason to believe may be to their benefit in the longer term.

The comfort aspect aspect of religious belief ignores the fact that religion is NOT always re-assuring - there is testimony from nurses and doctors who see anger, fear and severe anxiety in people in serious or even terminal conditions in hospital as patients try to reconcile their fate with the teachings of their religion, and/or are terrified at the possibility/probability they have not  met the criterion for admission to Heaven.

The anguished reaction of "Why me?' "What have I done to deserve this?" is also one of the effects of religious belief.

Not saying it cannot offer comfort, just that it also can and does work very much the other way. It would be irrational to deny this.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I might have agreed with you

I might have agreed with you in the past. Religion is a drug, it can be an opiate for people experiencing psychological trauma. But today science and medicine have advanced enough that even in the case of the grieving mother, she's better off seeking the help of trained therapists and doctors. If you were in a car accident, would you want me to call an ambulance or just pray over you?

The pastors and preacher at best could provide temporary relieve, I think the side effects of the religion drug in the long run are worse. It's basically turn your brain off to avoid the pain, grief and fear. Zombies don't feel pain is not a good solution. The religious leaders just take advantage of grieving people to fatten their wallets.

 

I think that's the argument of the new atheism. We've advanced enough with our understanding of things that there is no longer a need for religion to provide anything. Science, medicine and technology when properly used can provide a better solution than the drug of religion. So it's time for religion to go on the ash heap of history.

And how can your belief really work anyway since you know religion is BS? Can you really force yourself to believe temporarily just to get the high every Sunday?

 

Loc wrote:

skepticdude wrote:

How about the grieving Christian mother whose kids just died in a car accident?  If you were her friend, would you initiate conversation with her about how irrational belief in God is? 

I agree that this would not be a good idea at the time. 

 

Why is it the the Theists have no problem introducing people to religion to people at their most depressed and vulnerable time. But could an atheist introduce rational thinking at one's most vulnerable time?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
 EXC wrote:Why is it the

 

EXC wrote:

Why is it the the Theists have no problem introducing people to religion to people at their most depressed and vulnerable time. But could an atheist introduce rational thinking at one's most vulnerable time?

Good point, I also meant to include that if a christian tried to share the gospel after my kids died, I would likely physically harm them. This is also why I don't think grief is a good time to talk about atheism. The person may be doubting and receptive to it,but more likely they will view atheists as heartless bastards and be embittered to them.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I think it's sometimes

I think it's sometimes rational to choose discretion over bluntness.  Sometimes, it is socially inappropriate to attack someone's beliefs.  I don't believe atheists ought to just trample through these occasions as if truth is always the best answer.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
another argument that

another argument that religion should continue being the opiate of certain people:

It is very natural for a woman who was raped as a girl, to block that memory from her mind.

The mind's evolution involves blocking out certain real occurences.

 

As such, there is nothing wrong with turning off the brain to avoid dealing with reality, we are all forced to turn our brains off everyday, and people who don't sleep enough come down with all sorts of problems in later life.

If the body naturally evolved a way for us to shut out reality so we can "recharge the batteries", then it is very natural and normal for a person to shut out of their mind the realities they don't wish to deal with.  If we say a lady is irrational for denying her husband's infidelities (sexual indiscretions, not debating at infidels.org Smiling  ), we are foisting our morality (she needs a reality check at this moment) upon her morality.   Us guys should take a lesson from the ladies. 

When girls talk to each other, they don't typically "corner" each other in the attempt to force somebody to acknowledge reality.  They talk more about how they sympathize, what they can do to help, etc.  Guys are the ones that want to stomp to the conclusion as soon as possible.

Given the mind and body's naturally evolved necessity to shut out reality, the argument is now made that reality checks aren't always the best to give people.

I can expand the argument and question whether it's better for us to engage in small talk first,  with any Christian that might wish to debate us.  We may discover that they haven't recharged their batteries enough and so aren't ready for the truth just yet.  The other side of that coin is, they are responsible for their actions.  If they request debate, they know perfectly well to expect both barrels right to the face.  Should we sometimes do feeble Christians a favor, and drop out of a debate if we feel their reality check will do them more harm than good?  That would be a tough call, given that we all love to debate, and would naturally prioritize the fulfillment of our desire to argue, above any concern about destroying the person themselves. 

Christians are crazy, you know.  You take away their rationale for belief, and they might decide that atheism = no moderation, and, having been illogical before, they become illogical atheists, not worried about destroying other people's lives since there is no god to fear anymore.  Most fundamentalists admit it's very hard to live under their system, and they can easily spin out of control if you take away their fake reason for moral restraint.  My desire in debating Christians is to demonstrate to them that atheism is consistent with moral restraint, which the vast majority of Christians deny.  I don't want to convert them to atheism, I simply want to destroy their false viewpoint on atheism.  When they acknowledge that atheism is not as contradictory as they once felt, that system of belief will perhaps become more attractive to them.  But it's getting over that "the-bible-has-decieved-you" hurdle that is toughest.  They'd rather be fools for Jesus than be logical.

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Belief despite understanding

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Rational way out

     As for the car accident scenario;   I would not initiate rational thought, that would clearly be out of line. As for the mother asking/yelling out "why did god do this?"  I would say calmly "I'm atheist" and say no more on that subject.  If you pretend to be Christen at this point, you could get stuck trying to explain why god just killed her child. NO Grieving perant is rational.

       As for the lonely older people; I would move the conversation away from religion,  older people have meny memorys to talk about, I  can not fake being religious,  I would tell them simply I"m a non-believer;   without the speach as to why. If you come accross a beligerent type in your volunteer work,  leave them to their religion and talk to some one else.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just to make it clear, my

Just to make it clear, my post could have come across as being a bit harsh, I would offer whatever normal human comfort and concern, not raise any belief issues gratuitously, but respond in somewhat the manner Jeffrick described.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
It is always best to be

It is always best to be thoughtful, considerate and gentle, but I won't lie about my atheism.

I definately don't corner people. I hate christians doing it to others, so I definately won't do it. I generally don't even bring up the subject. But if we are talking about religion I won't lie, I don't see the point. I am, however, cautious. You need to judge your audience and it can be best to let the subject  drop sometimes. I think it is enough for them to know I am a nice guy and an atheist, then let them probe as much as is comfortable for them. If you are too confronting they will shut you out and you won't get anywhere, and the stronger someone's belief is the less tolerant they are going to be.

I will also bite my tongue sometimes out of politeness. I don't want to totally offend and be ostrasized from the overly religious side of the family. They are actually good people, despite their delusions.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 The original post may be

 The original post may be confusing "rational" with "socially expedient". It happens a lot.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Faith does not have

Quote:

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.

I know this is off topic, but I much prefer the following variation:

I know not if faith can move mountains, but I have seen what it can do to skyscrapers.

Now, with respect to the OP, I am ambivalent. I think the whole notion of "we need religion" is a self-fulfillng prophecy. If society holds the idea that people need religion, then people will think they need religion, and will become so tethered to it, that eventually they will. If we didn't think we needed religion, we wouldn't need it.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
I agree with DG. "If we

I agree with DG. "If we didn't think we needed religion, we wouldn't need it."

I was raised without religion. My father told me to look into it and decide for myself, I did go to church a few times with grandparents, but on the whole I never had the stage of thinking there was a higher power looking over me. I really love sci-fi and fantasy and think that religion is wonderful in stories and movies, but do not confuse it with reality.

I just don't have that "god-hole" or whatever, I don't feel the need for anything else other than reality. I admit I only have a small sample size to work with, but it seems to me that those who were raised in religion and told from a young age that they need religion/god to be whole seem to be more uncomfortable with being without it. They spend more time and effort looking for alternatives to the religion they rejected (other religions, new age stuff).

But then, I'm not normal in a lot of ways (I think I'm the only one who posted no phobias in the phobia thread), so maybe it's just me.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I know this is off

Quote:

I know this is off topic, but I much prefer the following variation:

I know not if faith can move mountains, but I have seen what it can do to skyscrapers.

Now, with respect to the OP, I am ambivalent. I think the whole notion of "we need religion" is a self-fulfillng prophecy. If society holds the idea that people need religion, then people will think they need religion, and will become so tethered to it, that eventually they will. If we didn't think we needed religion, we wouldn't need it.

I wholeheartedly endorse every word of this post.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


PhillyChief
PhillyChief's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-24
User is offlineOffline
 The asshats who think that

 The asshats who think that without a belief in god they'd go shoot people or something, well, I'm cool with them believing.

I look at religious belief like doing drugs or smoking. It's not good for you, but if your usage doesn't hurt anyone other than yourself, and you can still function in society, knock yourself out. That doesn't mean the usage is then rational, more like rationalizing irrational behavior. 

 

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I have two problems with the

I have two problems with the original question here.

 

As pointed out already skepticdude is using the word "rational" when he meens "politic" or "good manners". Refraining from going into an anti-theist rant when your prospective audience is in the throes of grief is simply basic common sense.

 

My second problem is in the notion of "denying god's existence". Why should I deny the existence of a figment of someone else's imagination? I deny nothing if it involves reinforcing the characterisation of that figment, which afer all is a huge part of the other guy's problem and one that I'm not going to knowingly contribute to if I can avoid it. When people say "god" to me I say "who?", just as I say when being introduced to anyone's invisible friend. If they can't point this friend out to me, or even show me evidence that he's been and gone and I just missed him, I say "get real" and bring the conversation back round to reality.

 

Life's too short to waste on such vacuous nonsense. Follow that line of reasoning and I guarantee you, you'll never have a moral dilemma when contemplating whether you should or shouldn't have jumped down a religious person's throat in their moment of grief with a load of "god talk" - for or against.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


goon303
Posts: 9
Joined: 2008-06-13
User is offlineOffline
I think that people are

I think that people are going to believe what they want to believe. There are people of varying backgrounds and ages and religions all over the world, and to sway all people to think one way is obviously impossible in our day and age. But, I believe that natually, over time, old religious beliefs will fade away, as technology and science become more advanced and ingrained in our lives. Let's face it, the theories of evolution are not nearly as old as the beliefs of Christianity, and so they have not yet had enough time to convince people or to be fully absorbed into our society, and that's not even taking into account what's happening in some other countries where I'm guessing evolution probably isn't even being taught in schools. We still have a lot of older generations of people who are in power today, and their influence is what keeps religion alive and strong. That will probably change over time though.

 

Regardless, what bothers me about religion is that it is included at the political level and upper society level. In other words, the most powerful people in the world are all biased in their decision making by the inclusion of their religious beliefs in the politcal process. And they also use relgion to support their efforts and influence the public. This is of course immoral and unethical.

 

Religion has been used for thousands of years to manipulate people and has been used for thousands of years as a political tool. In a modern civilized society, religion has no place in politics because every religious view contradicts another religious view. In otherwords, by having a "Christian" country, you are automatically at odds with an "islamic" country simply because the beliefs contradict each other. This type of leadership and control at the highest levels of a countries government creates the very problems in this world that most athiests are against, such as war and racism and prejudice.

 

You can try to convince me of the positive uses of religion in politics, but I'm pretty sure they are not needed. May I suggest Roman history, or perhaps the crusades, as good reading. You'll see the historical use of religion as a control tool, and it's just damn good reading.  Eye-wink  Such bloody brutal disgusting history of people slaughtering each other in the name of their God's. It's very entertaining, but completely unnecessary. The common people believed in their God or God's and faught in his/her/their name(s). But the politicians, and leaders, most likely were fighting for something else. Wealth and power most likely. And doing it in the name of God is a great way to get thousands of people to flock to your cause, especially when they are all fanatics and zealots. That was a long time ago right? Well, it's not much different than what's going on today all over the world, except now we have better technology so killing is even easier and now we can all watch it on TV as a form of entertainment. It's this kind of archaic thinking that is continually perpepuating the most brutal aspect of humanity.  If we want a peaceful world, religion has got to go, in my opinion.

 

But, as you pointed out, just trying to convince the common person that there is no God may not really do much of anything or may not have a positive impact at the individual level. What I want to see is the seperation of God and leadership. I want impartial open minded leaders in the world who are willing to talk to each other and treat each other as friends and equals. I'm tired of countries seeing each other as enemies and opposition, or religious groups seeing each other as enemies etc.  Smiling  Religion belongs at the personal level, not in our leaders.


Josiah
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Priorities matter

It would be silly to talk about how much you love cookies after this event as well, I guess I just don't see the point to this post. It seems like the only way this would matter was if you thought your only purpose in life is to spread atheism.

My sister is christian, apparently has been going to revivals nightly this week trying to sort things out with god and her situation at home. She's having a rough time with an alcoholic husband and three young children to watch, with no way out. I'm going to go see her today, but instead of telling her how great atheism is I'll probably be, well, ministering to her in her own religious context. It really doesn't bother me because I love my sister and want to help her, and will do whatever I can do to that. She knows I'm an atheist, but still respects my viewpoint because my goal is to improve the lives of the people around me, the people I love, rather than to just spread my viewpoint and she knows that.

If your sole goal in life was to spread atheism, then it would be rational to deny god's existence in this situation, but at that point you have some really fucked up priorities. I think most of us would agree that the atheist that places spreading his or her world view over respect for a grieving mother would be the same as a christian opportunist trying to push his ideology off on someone in a moment of pain.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Josiah wrote:It really

Josiah wrote:

It really doesn't bother me because I love my sister and want to help her, and will do whatever I can do to that.

To me, this is the jewel of this debate -- part personal expression, part zen koan, and part simple rule for living with others.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Josiah wrote:If your sole

Josiah wrote:

If your sole goal in life was to spread atheism, then it would be rational to deny god's existence in this situation, but at that point you have some really fucked up priorities. I think most of us would agree that the atheist that places spreading his or her world view over respect for a grieving mother would be the same as a christian opportunist trying to push his ideology off on someone in a moment of pain.

Sure. (Welcome to the boards, by the way.) It would be pretty insensitive to get all heavy on anyone who was going through difficulty. I remember my mother telling me that when her best friend was dying, the woman's estranged husband started going off trying to lead everyone in prayer. That's just pressing your ideology, and it's not cool. Same way I wouldn't bring it up unless someone asked me (and wasn't particularly vulnerable). There's a thread on this by Cpt_Pinapple somewhere around here, if you're interested.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


PorkChop
Rational VIP!SuperfanSilver Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 2008-06-26
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote:so I

skepticdude wrote:

so I become a Christian for a few hours on certain Sunday's, and the benefits of this lie in this context greatly outweigh the problems that would start if I was honest with these feeble people about what I really believe.  They can feel the Holy Spirit moving through my singing and fellowship if they think I'm a Christian, and they wouldn't enjoy themselves at all if they knew the truth.

I can see where you are coming from, but would like to offer another suggestion:

How about just volunteering there (or somewhere else to forgo the need to explain) on days other than those 'certain sundays'.  You can show those sweet old folks that people in the world can hang out, read, sing, function, and have a good time...all the while NOT talking about j&g (jesus and god).  You don't need to be involved in a group...like you said, they are lonely...they just want company.

I really enjoy having a fundie telling me how much they like me and enjoy my company and energy and such...and then seeing the 'does not compute' look in their eyes when it becomes politely clear that I don't believe what they believe.  "But you are so nice!?"

Hilarious.

(btw...I think it's super duper that you volunteer.  Good job, human!)


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
From personal experience..

 I was 15 when my mother lost a long a terrible battle with cancer.  It was an awkward age for me, and I didn't feel like I could really reach out to anyone for help.  Because of that I was drawn to god, who wouldn't judge me yadda yadda.  

~That~ led me to some very strange thinking..  that something she (or I) had done caused such a fate to befall my family; that if I could fast (eating control) enough or become sufficiently full of grace I would gain knowledge as to why that happened or even be allowed to see her again; I even got to the point in my thinking that she was killed in such a terrible way (by god) while I was in an important stage in my life so that I would be prepared for some future event where I would have to rely on that strength.  

It went on like that for nearly 5 years.  If someone had just slapped me upside the head, showed that they cared about my troubles, and worked to help me through the really screwed up thinking that had developed, I would have not had the additional struggle against theism adding to my survivors guilt.  

It may not be appropriate to assert your beliefs at the low, powerful moments when news is received, but it ~is~ appropriate to answer questions honestly and tactfully, to recognize when a person's weakness is compounding a problem then to be strong for them.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote:My lie

skepticdude wrote:

My lie helps cure their loneliness, so I become a Christian for a few hours on certain Sunday's, and the benefits of this lie in this context greatly outweigh the problems that would start if I was honest with these feeble people about what I really believe.  They can feel the Holy Spirit moving through my singing and fellowship if they think I'm a Christian, and they wouldn't enjoy themselves at all if they knew the truth.

So would you agree that indulging somebody's delusions is sometimes the more rational thing to do?

Septicdouche, you're a lying sack of shit and should be ashamed of further deluding these people.

I'm kidding!

Seriously, the only statement that you made that I have any hint of veracity is that you're a liar.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
lying to people to spare

lying to people to spare their feelings only ends up backfiring. My advice to you is be discreet and tell someone who is grieving that you'll be around to listen to them when they need to talk.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Kay Cat wrote:lying to

Kay Cat wrote:

lying to people to spare their feelings only ends up backfiring. My advice to you is be discreet and tell someone who is grieving that you'll be around to listen to them when they need to talk.

 

Well said!

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
I agree. If the situation

I agree. If the situation calls for it I will bight my tongue and not say anything, but I won't lie about my lack of religion.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
 Tact before facts or facts

 Tact before facts or facts before tact?


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
I think tact should always

I think tact should always come first, by the time you get the facts it may be too late Smiling

 


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Tact before

magilum wrote:

 Tact before facts or facts before tact?

 

tact before facts, of course. without the tact, facts are ignored when a person isn't willing to listen.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
 I tend to stick to the

 I tend to stick to the facts, when relevant, even if they make me look bad. It's a compulsion. I'm aware when I do it, but I can't think of words or statements to sugar coat or alter what I say, so I run with it in the faint hope I'll just be labeled a well-meaning square dealer. On the other hand, I don't go out of my way to interject upsetting realities (or the greater of two probabilities, let's say) without reason.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I think

Hambydammit wrote:

I think it's sometimes rational to choose discretion over bluntness.  Sometimes, it is socially inappropriate to attack someone's beliefs.  I don't believe atheists ought to just trample through these occasions as if truth is always the best answer.

 

Lets not give theists the impression that believing false things is ok. I think a better way of putting it is called compassion in the setting of "time place and context".

It merely boils down to human empathy. I doubt any atheist here would appreciate at such a time a believer saying, "your loss is due to you not believing in my god".

There are times in life where you leave the differences aside, weddings and funerals are such a case.

My  friend got married and the minister, outside just before the wedding kept repeating, "I am here on behalf of state". I wanted to scream at her, "No you idiot, YOU were requested by the couple, but you are not required by the state".

BUT, since it was not my place or the right context to say such, and since I valued my friend's private moment, I bit my tongue. It just wasn't an appropriate setting or context to raise such an issue. I think most here would expect the same thing in their own moments. There is a time when issues should be set aside.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I agree Brian - but as you

I agree Brian - but as you illustrate yourself, they should by no means be forgotten or not referred to later. Your friends' "moment" is long passed now so I hope you've at least let them know what a presumptive eejit they had "officiating" their big day.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy