I'm not worried about being seen as mean or disrespectful--or some similar charge--when it comes to believers. We know from a whole host of studies and basic wisdom going back at least to the ancient Greeks, that the attitude with which someone gets challenged has little affect. Any direct claim of disapproval of something that someone has claimed to be part of their worldview will always be defended. Change only seems to come when they find out on their own, first through indirect exposure to information then a personal search.
There will be exceptions, of course. But I don't remember ever reading a de-conversion account that says anything like "I decided to investigate my own beliefs because atheists are so nice about their stance." As another point, people have always "converted" and followed some of the world's biggest assholes, both political and religious. It's not a great deterrent, I don't think.
Now, I'm not claiming I'm an asshole or someone to be followed. (But, others may disagree on the asshole thing.) But the idea that being kind and nice and respectful or whatever seemed intuitive, but it's ironically not the case very often. People make friendships and valid and meaningful relationships on these traits, but they are not the traits that people look for when looking to people for other reasons.
With that being said, there's also no reason to come in guns blazing all the time either. When it comes to the question of whether there's a god or not, it is a question that I think can be answered, even in the universal sense. But, more importantly, I think it's a stupid question. It's not based on anything reasonable and is not worthy of respect.
I think of it similarly to when people assert that some ancient boxer could have defeated some current champion. Maybe it's a fun question to ponder in a bar over a few beers, but it's not something to be taken seriously. Same thing with the claims of a magical deity that lives and works outside the laws of the universe. It's a non-sequitur, meaning it's not worthy of consideration. Having an open mind doesn't mean that every assertion needs consideration--or respect.
On taking a stance on a universal god, it's technically impossible to prove a negative. But, at some point you reach a point after a certain amount of time that any claim can be said to be false after repeated attempts to show claims of it's validity continue to fail. Any claim that some new piece of future evidence is valid would also have to re-validate all of the accumulated proven failures to that point. Holding out some hope for that is close to win the lottery on the night there's no scheduled drawing.
That's my two cents. I know others disagree, and that's okay. We are all in different places when it comes to this stuff. But, personally, I feel I've moved on and, like learning to ride a bike, I don't need to keep revisiting how to do so.
There will be exceptions, of course. But I don't remember ever reading a de-conversion account that says anything like "I decided to investigate my own beliefs because atheists are so nice about their stance." As another point, people have always "converted" and followed some of the world's biggest assholes, both political and religious. It's not a great deterrent, I don't think.
Now, I'm not claiming I'm an asshole or someone to be followed. (But, others may disagree on the asshole thing.) But the idea that being kind and nice and respectful or whatever seemed intuitive, but it's ironically not the case very often. People make friendships and valid and meaningful relationships on these traits, but they are not the traits that people look for when looking to people for other reasons.
With that being said, there's also no reason to come in guns blazing all the time either. When it comes to the question of whether there's a god or not, it is a question that I think can be answered, even in the universal sense. But, more importantly, I think it's a stupid question. It's not based on anything reasonable and is not worthy of respect.
I think of it similarly to when people assert that some ancient boxer could have defeated some current champion. Maybe it's a fun question to ponder in a bar over a few beers, but it's not something to be taken seriously. Same thing with the claims of a magical deity that lives and works outside the laws of the universe. It's a non-sequitur, meaning it's not worthy of consideration. Having an open mind doesn't mean that every assertion needs consideration--or respect.
On taking a stance on a universal god, it's technically impossible to prove a negative. But, at some point you reach a point after a certain amount of time that any claim can be said to be false after repeated attempts to show claims of it's validity continue to fail. Any claim that some new piece of future evidence is valid would also have to re-validate all of the accumulated proven failures to that point. Holding out some hope for that is close to win the lottery on the night there's no scheduled drawing.
That's my two cents. I know others disagree, and that's okay. We are all in different places when it comes to this stuff. But, personally, I feel I've moved on and, like learning to ride a bike, I don't need to keep revisiting how to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment