Atheists becoming more vocal and outspoken

[DrZoidberg]

Let's think of various social movements throughout history---non-discrimination for women, blacks, Hispanics, etc. What prompted those massive cultural upheavals? Was it people being mellow and carrying a "live-and-let-live" attitude, or moreso from being increasingly activist and outspoken about their views and challenging the norms, also having open-but-uncomfortable discussions within our social circles? I do not see why any atheists use the former as a guide when it seems to be so incapable of making significant progress. We need to be more activist-oriented.

ETA: Should we take that live-and-let-live approach to politics also? Encourage people to not be active, do not be outspoken, do not contribute resources to political organizations you support, do not discuss politics with any people in your inner circles. Just focus on improving yourself and how well-informed your own vote is, and then that will be enough to [somehow] sufficiently change the world for the better. Do not be vocal and public about other views are flawed in any way though. Keep the facade of "it's all good."

I'm not a hippie. Nothing of what I have discussed has much to say about politics. "Cosmic consciousness", "endless love" and bla bla are useful tools while doing yoga or during some meditations. But it is bullshit. It's just a feeling. A good feeling in certain limited times. But take it with you in the wider world you will be a sucker.

 

[Brian63]

Then find other atheists like yourself, form a group and work on the spiritual shortcomings of those in the group. It has the benefit of an instant pay-off. And if you're doing a good job others who are interested will find you.

I have, and we have. We can do that while also being more outspoken against other groups who oppose us.

Now with the Internet evangelism is a complete waste of time anyway.

? Hopefully I am misinterpreting that somehow. The internet has been tremendous in helping atheists find each other and form virtual communities and also in finding local real-life communities. Are you referring to religious evangelism?

It's not a question of being meek. Its about doing what works. These are tried and tested methods used by most religions throughout history.

Yes, religions have performed well at establishing and maintaining status quos among large masses, and social conventions that others are reluctant to challenge. over long stretches of time. Civil rights movements have worked by individuals and small groups being willing to stand against the conventions and norms of the day. In the U.S. in recent years, we have had the MeToo movement and gun control movements, for instance. These were not social changes brought on by people who were more "meh" in their attitudes towards social activism. These were people who invested time and energy, and were outspoken to bring about change.

Most people have not been converted by military might

Nobody ever advocated anything remotely resembling military might. It is a willingness to have uncomfortable conversations, and to break the "religious correctness" (not offending the religious beliefs of others) that we need to improve on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I have, and we have. We can do that while also being more outspoken against other groups who oppose us.

Fuck them. Fuck your opposition. Do your own thing. If your thing exists only in opposition to something else you are dependent on that other thing for your identity. That's the path to spiritual impoverishment. Its a victim mentality. If you don't need religion, then prove it by doing something not dependent on religion.

? Hopefully I am misinterpreting that somehow. The internet has been tremendous in helping atheists find each other and form virtual communities and also in finding local real-life communities. Are you referring to religious evangelism?

A couple of years ago Volvo employed the top marketing genius and asked him what strategy they should use for marketing. He just told them to build a better car. Have good customer support. If it's good. People will talk. They'll share things on-line. That's how things work today.

I first found this place because I was talking religion on an unrelated forum, and somebody suggested this place might be up my alley. I put in the work that led me here. Nobody had to talk me into coming here.

All evangelism is bullshit today. Its unnecessary and only annoying.

It's not a question of being meek. Its about doing what works. These are tried and tested methods used by most religions throughout history.

Yes, religions have performed well at establishing and maintaining status quos among large masses, and social conventions that others are reluctant to challenge. over long stretches of time. Civil rights movements have worked by individuals and small groups being willing to stand against the conventions and norms of the day. In the U.S. in recent years, we have had the MeToo movement and gun control movements, for instance. These were not social changes brought on by people who were more "meh" in their attitudes towards social activism. These were people who invested time and energy, and were outspoken to bring about change.

These are different things. I'm talking about spiritual work. You're talking about politics. Focus on the spiritual side or you won't de-convert a single theist.

The political change comes down the road. It will follow from the spiritual work.

Most people have not been converted by military might

Nobody ever advocated anything remotely resembling military might. It is a willingness to have uncomfortable conversations, and to break the "religious correctness" (not offending the religious beliefs of others) that we need to improve on.

Again... if God is important for somebody's spiritual work you'll just be an annoying cunt by attacking it.

I'm convinced that even religious people, on some level, understand that God is only symbolic, and the idea that a God really exists is stupid. Nothing but wishful thinking. The same people are suspicious when they're offered a discount that sounds too good to be true. I don't think religious people are necessarily stupid. So there's something else going on here.

 

[Brian63]

Fuck them. Fuck your opposition. Do your own thing.

If only it were that simple. Really though, when those others hold massive political, cultural, and psychological powers over large populations and they enforce their views on others, we cannot just do our own thing. We have to share the world with them, where they establish many of the rules which harm us. We need to be more proactive in changing the world from how it is, not complacent with it.

If your thing exists only in opposition to something else you are dependent on that other thing for your identity.

I do not have just one thing that makes up my identity. I also have hobbies and interests and pleasures in life. So please do not misread me as advocating that this atheist activism should become our one and sole purpose in life, the only makeup of our identity. Advocating for positive change is one of many things that we should be engaged in.

A couple of years ago Volvo employed the top marketing genius and asked him what strategy they should use for marketing. He just told them to build a better car. Have good customer support. If it's good. People will talk. They'll share things on-line. That's how things work today.

I first found this place because I was talking religion on an unrelated forum, and somebody suggested this place might be up my alley. I put in the work that led me here. Nobody had to talk me into coming here.

I have heard anecdotes that have flowed in the opposite direction as well. People knew virtually nothing about atheism, had no reason to doubt their childhood religious beliefs, thought atheists were vermin and scum of the earth, etc. Then some atheist started being more outspoken about promoting their own views and showing how deficient other (religious) views were, and they started to sympathize more with them and see them as more reasonable, eventually becoming more secular and fulfilled as well.

All evangelism is bullshit today. Its unnecessary and only annoying.

Well, I do like you DrZoidberg and please do not think my disagreement with you on that point represents a personal insult in any way. The fact that people evangelize does not bother me, it is what they evangelize for. Actually, it is horrific to me that some people sincerely believe I will suffer for all eternity because of what I believe, and they do little to nothing to try and stop it. They should be working their asses off to try and convince us skeptics to become Christians (or to convince God, who is the final decision-maker on who winds up in heaven or hell).

These are different things. I'm talking about spiritual work. You're talking about politics.

I am talking about both. A person's spirituality influences their ethics, influences their personality, influences who they select as friends, influences their political views, influences their scientific views, etc. all in a feedback loop with each other. Our beliefs do not exist in a vacuum. They interact with each other and reinforce each other.

Again... if God is important for somebody's spiritual work you'll just be an annoying cunt by attacking it.

I agree, if attacking is what I actually have advocated. That is not so, though. Getting a person to change their minds about any beliefs, in particular deeply ingrained and core religious beliefs, is a very complex and difficult process. It is necessary to both expose flaws and deficiencies in their worldview as well as promoting an alternative belief system that is superior in quality and does not suffer from those flaws and deficiencies.

An article I came across many years ago by a psychologist discusses the phenomenon very well:

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

I'm convinced that even religious people, on some level, understand that God is only symbolic, and the idea that a God really exists is stupid. Nothing but wishful thinking. The same people are suspicious when they're offered a discount that sounds too good to be true. I don't think religious people are necessarily stupid. So there's something else going on here.

I disagree. Everyone will have moments of doubt, but on the whole many believe it to be literal reality, and not just symbolic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If only it were that simple. Really though, when those others hold massive political, cultural, and psychological powers over large populations and they enforce their views on others, we cannot just do our own thing. We have to share the world with them, where they establish many of the rules which harm us. We need to be more proactive in changing the world from how it is, not complacent with it.

It's not a question of that. It's a question of changing what you can change, and not trying to change that which you can't. You can only change yourself. That's where the extent of your power ends. Also, you keep confusing religious faith with politics. I'm not discussing the politics. The politics of Christians is a symptom of the core problem, theism. Unless you change their theism (you're not), changing the politics (resulting from their theism) is a waste of time.

Until secularists start secular programmes and groups for spiritual training and spiritual work, the Christians win on walkover. They can be beat. Christianity, as a spiritual system, became obsolete hundreds of years ago. It's not particularly well adapted to the modern world. Why do you think yoga is so popular today? It's both a method of working out, as well as spiritual training. Meditation has become popular among atheists. Here's something on the upswing, to go and live in a monastery for a while. Even for atheists. I know atheist friends who have done it and loved it. Vipassana meditation is today huge among spiritually minded atheists.

At it's core a Christian mass is basically just a guy reading up a short list of things (or just one thing) which is good to keep in mind throughout your day. This is reading the bit in the Bible. It's a ritual. So it's often repeated. Well... atheists have a world of literature from which to draw from. This is something everybody should do. This shit isn't hard to design. Humans re-enforce each other. So it's paramount it is done in groups. Even just two people works.

A Christian mass is also singing together. Creates a sense of unity and community. A sense of community is crucial for a social being as us. Especially in a modern economy where we don't have a small close knit unit around us.

A Christian mass is also taking time out of your day to sit in silence. Extremely important to do. Especially today. Sitting still doing nothing is our primary weapon against addictive behaviours. If we never do it, we are suckers for addiction.

In London and Copenhagen there's "congregations" based on the same principle. But instead of talk of God and a sermon, each week a scientist is invited to talk about their research. It's hugely popular. What a surprise!

We have a craving for this stuff.

I do not have just one thing that makes up my identity. I also have hobbies and interests and pleasures in life. So please do not misread me as advocating that this atheist activism should become our one and sole purpose in life, the only makeup of our identity. Advocating for positive change is one of many things that we should be engaged in.

Why not see it as an identity? I strongly identify as an atheist. I love science. To me universities are our Cathedrals. They are sacred temples. Free speech, free expression, science and democracy are sacred principles to me. It's a strong identity. I too want belief in God to die. I think it's pure poison. It's spiritual poison. The sooner it dies the better.

I have heard anecdotes that have flowed in the opposite direction as well. People knew virtually nothing about atheism, had no reason to doubt their childhood religious beliefs, thought atheists were vermin and scum of the earth, etc. Then some atheist started being more outspoken about promoting their own views and showing how deficient other (religious) views were, and they started to sympathize more with them and see them as more reasonable, eventually becoming more secular and fulfilled as well.

Every culture has it's "great Satan". Some symbol for the worst of the worst. In Europe today it is "Hitler" or "drugs". It's a pretty weak fear and can only exist in isolation. Yes, in those cases it's great to wear a t-shirt that says "I'm an atheist" and just be a decent person.

All evangelism is bullshit today. Its unnecessary and only annoying.

Well, I do like you DrZoidberg and please do not think my disagreement with you on that point represents a personal insult in any way. The fact that people evangelize does not bother me, it is what they evangelize for. Actually, it is horrific to me that some people sincerely believe I will suffer for all eternity because of what I believe, and they do little to nothing to try and stop it. They should be working their asses off to try and convince us skeptics to become Christians (or to convince God, who is the final decision-maker on who winds up in heaven or hell).

What's horrific is that people think that a being willing to torture somebody for all eternity is seen as a good being, worthy of worship. What does that tell us about their moral compass? It's not good.

I don't understand why all Christians who believe in God don't worship Satan. God is clearly the evil character in the Bible. Satan is our best defence. Anyhoo... that was my take away from reading the Bible.

An article I came across many years ago by a psychologist discusses the phenomenon very well:

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

I also read it many years ago. But that article is only interesting if you are facing a theist and they're already open and listening to what you are saying. Getting people to that point is hard.

I'm convinced that even religious people, on some level, understand that God is only symbolic, and the idea that a God really exists is stupid. Nothing but wishful thinking. The same people are suspicious when they're offered a discount that sounds too good to be true. I don't think religious people are necessarily stupid. So there's something else going on here.

I disagree. Everyone will have moments of doubt, but on the whole many believe it to be literal reality, and not just symbolic.

If God was a sensible belief Christians wouldn't be so annoyed when it was challenged. They wouldn't find atheists so annoying and threatening. They wouldn't demonise them. They certainly wouldn't be coming here to talk us out of it.

The Christian God IS a ridiculous concept. Believing in God is like being on a date with somebody and honestly wonder if they're secretly Superman and can fly. Nobody, not retarded, is that damn stupid. It's a belief that can only exist in an un-examined mind. Which is why theists spend so much effort in not examining it. That's what having faith means.

Having faith means having taken the leap of faith in spite of the evidence. A person resorting to faith, knows their belief is wrong. But wants to believe anyway. Because having the belief is useful. See above for the spiritual benefits listed. That's what they want.

 

[Brian63]

DrZoidberg, I want to address your post above when I get a little more opportunity. In the meantime though, I wanted to lay out the following for anyone out there:

Is there any hypothetical scenario, any hypothetical event that could ever come about which would be an utter cataclysm, and was inspired and motivated in large part by religious beliefs---to which you would then say "Oh my, I wish now I had done more previously to prevent the influence of religion in our world?"

The first such event for me was the 9/11 terror attack in the U.S. After the initial shock weared off, I decided that I had to stop treating religious beliefs with kid gloves all the time. Religious beliefs did not deserve the respect that they are automatically-given, and when someone espouses such beliefs (even in their more moderate forms) those need to be challenged.

Years later in the U.S. when the social movements to allow gay marriage dominated our culture, that was another eye-opener for me. Nobody ever had a good secular argument for why 2 people with similar genitalia should not be permitted to marry each other---all arguments against it were rooted in religious beliefs and customs. Well, then our religious beliefs and customs need to change. They are still having a real-time harm on people in our society.

We are also dealing with the global crisis of climate change, and opposition to any preventative activity is also fueled in part by religious beliefs. In the U.S. recently, a congressperson cited the Bible and how God swore to protect the Earth as justification for not needing to worry about climate change. When we are talking about intensifying and increasingly powerful natural disasters and extinction-level catastrophes, then that should also be considered warrant for us to become more active in promoting our own views. That would help counteract the resistance.

Those are the 3 biggest eye-openers for me, that the current approach of live-and-let-live is simply not enough. Although I suppose the election of Donald Trump (in large part because of the influence of the Religious Right) could be another impetus for change. Regardless---is there any hypothetical injustice or disaster fueled in large part by religion---no matter how outlandish it seems---that would get you to reconsider and even wish you had been more active, when you had the chance, to stop that injustice or disaster? Anything that would make you think it was worth having a few uncomfortable conversations with friends, if it resulted in saving and improving the lives of others? Or would the "As long as they are not imposing on me then I don't care" attitude always remain prevalent, no matter what?

 

[southernhybrid]

I read earlier today that the "nones", now out number evangelicals. I realize that not all of the "nones" are atheists but they aren't organized either and even those who hold a belief in a higher power aren't trying to influence anyone else with their beliefs. Fundamentalism seems to be dying out, which may be why politicians have used them as a way to get more votes. Eventually, as their numbers continue to decline, they will have less and less power. Let it die out naturally.

And, I disagree with a comment you said earlier in the thread about liberal Christians enabling fundamentalists. Nothing could be further from the true. The liberals are just a step or two over the line from agnosticism. For the most part, they value their communities and the mythology that comes with their religion. They interpret their scriptures in a much more liberal, altruistic way as compared to fundamentalists. They are our allies, not our enemies.

I understand how you feel about Trump, but evangelizing to Christians isn't going to accomplish anything constructive. Being open about our atheism is a good thing. Defending our atheism is a positive, when its attacked. I just don't see any benefit that would come from evangelizing our atheism. It only worked for Christians because gullible people liked the promise of heaven so they simply accepted it without giving it much thought. They fell for the emotional appeal. I was raised by such people. I attended the Billy Graham Crusades in New York City as a child. I saw how these people manipulate desperate people by promising them pie in the sky. People like that aren't going to be persuaded by reason. It offers them none of the goodies that they think they have with Christianity. Hopefully, with time, there will be fewer young people who fall for this nonsense.

 

[Brian63]

I read earlier today that the "nones", now out number evangelicals. I realize that not all of the "nones" are atheists but they aren't organized either and even those who hold a belief in a higher power aren't trying to influence anyone else with their beliefs.

They may not be *trying* to, but they are still doing so. By keeping the idea of religious supremacy so dominant in the public sphere, they are doing a great disservice to us all. They are not trying to do so and are not aware that they are doing so, but they are still unknowingly doing so.

Fundamentalism seems to be dying out, which may be why politicians have used them as a way to get more votes. Eventually, as their numbers continue to decline, they will have less and less power. Let it die out naturally.

This may seem a nitpick at first, but I need to correct a very misleading term there. Whether it dies out “naturally” is not at stake. Nobody is saying any activity is anything but natural. What is in dispute is how active or passive we should be in reducing the harm of religion in society. Please avoid using the term “naturally” to describe your position as if other positions (like mine) are not “natural.” More apt terms would be “proactive” and “passive.”

And, I disagree with a comment you said earlier in the thread about liberal Christians enabling fundamentalists. Nothing could be further from the true. The liberals are just a step or two over the line from agnosticism. For the most part, they value their communities and the mythology that comes with their religion. They interpret their scriptures in a much more liberal, altruistic way as compared to fundamentalists. They are our allies, not our enemies.

They are both. They are unwitting enablers of religious institutions. They also contribute to the problem if they advance the idea that religious beliefs should have any kind of cultural, legal, ethical, scientific, or political supremacy in our culture. They do not challenge fundamentalists on their base beliefs of the supremacy of God, because they share those base beliefs. We atheists have to be more outspoken in challenging that erroneous belief.

I understand how you feel about Trump, but evangelizing to Christians isn't going to accomplish anything constructive.

I have firsthand and secondhand experience that it is constructive. Back in my early days of exploring atheism, I learned a lot by watching how other atheists debated (in real-life and online) various theists and rebutted apologetic arguments, for example. I have seen other newly deconverted atheists mention to prominent atheist activists how they were very helpful in assisting them, in part by exposing the flaws in religious beliefs.

I just don't see any benefit that would come from evangelizing our atheism.

Because religious beliefs are harmful to people. I cannot even count the number of instances where people have described the mental, psychological, and emotional harms that their religious beliefs (and indoctrination) inflicted on them. It gave them a fear of hell. It made them feel alone. They felt guilty to be doubting God and their religion. A family member, while he was doubting his religious beliefs, feared that he was the Antichrist.

It is not enough for us to simply announce that we are atheists, and pretend that religious views are just as a-ok for people to hold. Religious beliefs clearly harm people. Again, even the more moderate and liberal versions of them still enable the more fundamentalist versions to maintain power. They must be confronted and challenged more openly and directly.

People like that aren't going to be persuaded by reason.

I do not think such an all-encompassing and sweeping statement is reasonable or true. There are certainly some former fundamentalists who have deconverted into atheism, in part because of people (such as atheists) openly challenging their religious assumptions. Some of my own family members are among that group.

 

[DrZoidberg]

DrZoidberg, I want to address your post above when I get a little more opportunity. In the meantime though, I wanted to lay out the following for anyone out there:

Is there any hypothetical scenario, any hypothetical event that could ever come about which would be an utter cataclysm, and was inspired and motivated in large part by religious beliefs---to which you would then say "Oh my, I wish now I had done more previously to prevent the influence of religion in our world?"

The first such event for me was the 9/11 terror attack in the U.S. After the initial shock weared off, I decided that I had to stop treating religious beliefs with kid gloves all the time. Religious beliefs did not deserve the respect that they are automatically-given, and when someone espouses such beliefs (even in their more moderate forms) those need to be challenged.

When I went to the Scandinavian version of Burning Man I took part in building a small city out of nothing for five days, partied for two days, then demolished it. I felt like I was part of something greater than myself. The festival was guided by the ten principals of Burning Man. In every way has the trappings of religion, but for atheists. At work, I feel like I'm am part of something greater than myself. I am proud to be part of a team. I'm sure the engineers on oil rigs feel the same way even though they're participating in destroying our planet. I'm sure any soldier fighting for any side feel the same way. This is just human. Atheism won't change this. Atheist soldiers are just as willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good as religious soldiers. It's just as if religion is irrelevant.

The problem of 9/11 wasn't religion. Osama bin Laden's motivations for the attack were extremely secular. He wanted USA to stop putting their big nose into Middle-Eastern politics. Ie, to stop putting western oriented puppet dictators in place. Americans often find this hard to fathom, but USA primarily, hasn't been spreading democracy around the world. Primarily they've been spreading capitalist dictatorship around the world. That's what USA is associated with.

In the Iranian revolution, when the people rose up, they were demonstrating against dictatorship imposed by USA. The plan was to Ayatollah Khomeini, and Islam would be the guarantor of democracy. It didn't pan out that way. But that was what the revolutionaries wanted.

When George Bush said he invaded Iraq to give the Iraquis freedom, no Arab is going to believe him. Because of USA's piss poor track record. USA's conduct in the Cold War poisoned the well for western democracy. So Africans and Middle-Easterners wan't nothing to do with USA.

That's what 9/11 was about.

The story American's tell themselves is that USA is a symbol of freedom in the world (it's not. It's today the symbol of the exact opposite) and that 9/11 was an attack on those values (it was not, Bin Laden explained why they attacked). When George Bush said that Bin Laden attacked USA because of American freedoms the rest of the world laughed at him and wondered how the hell anybody can be so damn deluded.

9/11 would have happened with or without religion. If you think 9/11 was the result of religious brainwashing, then perhaps you are the one who has been brainwashed?

Years later in the U.S. when the social movements to allow gay marriage dominated our culture, that was another eye-opener for me. Nobody ever had a good secular argument for why 2 people with similar genitalia should not be permitted to marry each other---all arguments against it were rooted in religious beliefs and customs. Well, then our religious beliefs and customs need to change. They are still having a real-time harm on people in our society.

Now you're onto something. But again, I think you're only trying to fix the symptom. Not the core belief. They turn to God, to help them deal with emotional turmoil and find strength and clarity. Because it works. The resistance to gay marriage is a price they feel they need to pay to get God. They see it as a package deal. They will only abandon God if they are given an alternative method to reach the same spiritual calm and grounding. Unless your focus is on that, you will fail.

While American resistance to gay marriage sounds like a great evil. Don't forget that the same society created gay liberation and gay pride. For better or for worse, Americans feel empowered. No matter what they believe, or how stupid they are. This has nothing to do with religion.

We are also dealing with the global crisis of climate change, and opposition to any preventative activity is also fueled in part by religious beliefs. In the U.S. recently, a congressperson cited the Bible and how God swore to protect the Earth as justification for not needing to worry about climate change. When we are talking about intensifying and increasingly powerful natural disasters and extinction-level catastrophes, then that should also be considered warrant for us to become more active in promoting our own views. That would help counteract the resistance.

Isn't this just the culture wars? Any culture with weak social welfare and programmes is going to have it's weaker members of society dependent on religious welfare. This is the glue keeping the American social fabric together. So attacking religion becomes a threat. It threatens to unravel the entire American society. This started with the theory of evolution, which became an attack on all science, and this carried over into Climate change?

Solution, start secular organisations that do the same thing. This is how religion was destroyed in Scandinavia. When socialism was first introduced into these parts, ca 1860, socialist agitators and socialist clubs would exactly mirror each religious institution and function. Step by step replacing religion and eventually making religion obsolete. 1940 100% of Swedes went to church each Sunday. By 1960 less than 10% of Swedes went to church and most importantly nobody talked about God or religion. By 1980 nobody who used to go to church when they were young remembered why they once went to church. By 2000 nearly all the once religious people were dead and nobody was around to answer why anybody ever went to church or believed in God.

The lesson here is that religions and religious rituals has very little unnecessary parts. While it might not look it, they are efficient. Having had evolved over tens of thousands of years. To destroy religion you need to identify each part and figure out a way to replace that function. Just pointing out that God isn't real and just a figment of their imagination is going to fail. It can only work on somebody already alienated by their religious community, and have nothing more to lose.

Those are the 3 biggest eye-openers for me, that the current approach of live-and-let-live is simply not enough. Although I suppose the election of Donald Trump (in large part because of the influence of the Religious Right) could be another impetus for change. Regardless---is there any hypothetical injustice or disaster fueled in large part by religion---no matter how outlandish it seems---that would get you to reconsider and even wish you had been more active, when you had the chance, to stop that injustice or disaster? Anything that would make you think it was worth having a few uncomfortable conversations with friends, if it resulted in saving and improving the lives of others? Or would the "As long as they are not imposing on me then I don't care" attitude always remain prevalent, no matter what?

At no point did I say, live and let live, or encourage passivity. What I did was suggest a strategy that might actually work, as opposed to a strategy that I'm sure won't.

I also think that religion is poison and mostly does damage. But not only. It also has a function and actually helps the faithful. Figure out how it helps them and provide a secular replacement. That's the only strategy that can work IMHO.

Right now religion is rapidly dying in the west and we're replacing it with consumerism. We're actively replacing spiritual growth and nourishment with encouraging use of distractions and working on cultivating addictions and addictive behaviours. Which is what spirituality, among other things, helps to counter. And we act surprised when religious people cling to their gods, in spite of the obvious fact, that these gods are imaginary.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it's Christianity that's tripping you up. Humanity has invented 6000 gods. Only two religions place the emphasis on belief. Islam and Christianity (interestingly, not Judaism). So for anybody having grown up in a Christian society, it's easy to assume that religion is only about faith. But faith is a Christian and Islamic term. No other religions speak about faith. In Hinduism the goal of being a devotee is for you to become a better person... in this life. Same deal with Buddhism.

If you only focus on the belief in God, you will fail to de-convert anybody, because you've failed to target the foundation for their belief. God is only an afterthought in Christianity. They believe in God, because of all the other stuff they get from being devotees. I know they keep denying it, and keep claiming that the belief in God is the central important thing for them, and without it the rest falls away. But that cannot be the reason. That makes no sense to me.

We all need a sense of belonging, a community. We all need to feel we're part of something greater than ourselves. We all need ritual to give us a sense of continuation, and... let's face it... a feeling you have something in common with people that you don't really. We need to find an outlet where we're allowed to selflessly share and help others without it automatically being exploited. Altruism is a real thing in humans. We suffer if we're not allowed to express it. We need a meaning with our lives that is something other than getting rich and successful. While it's nice to be rich; if money, glamour and sex with hot people is all you got, that is an empty life. As recoverers from addiction, all can attest to.

We have a need to a separate (and sacred space) we can sit in silence. Especially when we're in emotional pain and turmoil. Ritualised introspection/mediation/prayer is important to us, and so on. Temples are important to have.

Add to that traditional teachings which have picked up on stuff most people struggle with. It's quite good to have these in a handy format that's easy to access. Hence the popularity of sacred texts.

You can create all this without needing to resort to a god. That's how you'll beat religion. Or, I'll reformulate it. If you try to kill religion any other way, you will fail.

 

[Brian63]

The problem of 9/11 wasn't religion. Osama bin Laden's motivations for the attack were extremely secular.

Even if you are correct that it was “extremely secular” then at least *part* of it has religious roots to it. I do not know the secular history, only know (or am pretty damn sure) that Allah is not real and the Koran is not divinely inspired. If I can help at all in reducing the influence of mythology in promoting acts of violence, injustice, and destruction, then I will do so.

The story American's tell themselves is that USA is a symbol of freedom in the world (it's not. It's today the symbol of the exact opposite) and that 9/11 was an attack on those values (it was not, Bin Laden explained why they attacked). When George Bush said that Bin Laden attacked USA because of American freedoms the rest of the world laughed at him and wondered how the hell anybody can be so damn deluded.

Well it is politically useful rhetoric, it works unfortunately. It is common for many Americans to associate their nationalistic views with their religious views, and think that God hand-picked the U.S.A. as being his favorite country above all others, we hold a special spot in his heart. I obviously do not hold such views, but it is still very common for people to believe so.

If you think 9/11 was the result of religious brainwashing, then perhaps you are the one who has been brainwashed?

There are multiple factors that contributed to the event, some being political, some religious. I never claimed it was entirely religious belief that provoked it, only that it was a contributing factor. Again, I do not know how to resolve the political tensions behind it, I only know that people justifying their acts of terror by sourcing their religious mythologies is not something that we should accept, and I can and will do something about that.

The resistance to gay marriage is a price they feel they need to pay to get God. They see it as a package deal. They will only abandon God if they are given an alternative method to reach the same spiritual calm and grounding. Unless your focus is on that, you will fail.

Why not do both? Both openly criticize the religious underpinnings of their resistance and also offer an alternative? You say to “focus” on one aspect, as if we should just not concern ourselves with the others. We can do both.

While American resistance to gay marriage sounds like a great evil. Don't forget that the same society created gay liberation and gay pride. For better or for worse, Americans feel empowered. No matter what they believe, or how stupid they are. This has nothing to do with religion.

DrZoidBerg, when people cite Bible verses as rationalizations for the political views, and views on what rights LGBTQ should and should not have, it is plain-as-day erroneous to then say their resistance has “nothing to do with religion.” Each side will cherry-pick around their religious text and religious views to support their support of, or opposition to, gay rights. What I have been arguing is that we should not accept those religious materials to be the arbiters and authorities in the first place. It should be entirely irrelevant.


________________________________________________

Religion is a cause of, and a symptom of, other problems. The human mind does not process information in a linear fashion, instead it is an interconnected network of various influences. There is no *one* single root problem that we should focus all our attention on because that is the one-and-only cause of all the other problems, instead we need to address all of them to varying extents because they all reinforce each other.

That paragraph is important, please re-read and do not mistakenly think there is a single “core belief” they hold that fuels all other beliefs. Instead, they have many “core beliefs” that all solidify each other. If we only focus on one and ignore the others, then we will not be as effective in resolving the numerous problems they generate.

________________________________________________

Solution, start secular organisations that do the same thing.

That is part of the solution, not the entirety of it. Atheists should also be more proactive in openly criticizing of bad beliefs. I think it was Sam Harris who coined the term “conversational intolerance” to describe this aspect. When we are having conversations with people who are espousing bad beliefs and bad justifications for those beliefs, we should openly challenge them. They may have never critically thought about those beliefs, because they were never put on the spot to do so. That may lead to them thinking in more depth about a wide variety of beliefs they hold but never had any reason to question.

This is how religion was destroyed in Scandinavia. When socialism was first introduced into these parts, ca 1860, socialist agitators and socialist clubs would exactly mirror each religious institution and function. Step by step replacing religion and eventually making religion obsolete. 1940 100% of Swedes went to church each Sunday. By 1960 less than 10% of Swedes went to church and most importantly nobody talked about God or religion. By 1980 nobody who used to go to church when they were young remembered why they once went to church. By 2000 nearly all the once religious people were dead and nobody was around to answer why anybody ever went to church or believed in God.

Great. Let’s also try to do it faster though. Given the climate crises, we may not have all those decades to spare. Inaction on climate change is driven *in part by* (not entirely by) religious beliefs that God would never let the Earth come to such harm.

Also in the meantime, if we were to wait around for decades for religious beliefs to passively phase itself out, people and other organisms will suffer because of it. We could have done more and done it more rapidly, but we instead decided that it is okay for everyone to suffer a bit, to be legally discriminated against, to experience trauma from religious indoctrination, to feel emotional isolation and suffering from doubting their religious beliefs, etc. All of that is a small price to pay, as long as we do not criticize religious beliefs openly. I hope you would be better than that.

Just pointing out that God isn't real and just a figment of their imagination is going to fail.

It has never been my position that “just pointing out…” is what I am advocating. This is a flagrant strawman. What I have repeatedly been saying is that that is one necessary component, among other necessary components. We need to be openly critical of religious beliefs and expose the flaws in them, ***while also*** promoting other worldviews that do not suffer from those same flaws and are superior, more useful to our world, and more fulfilling.

…is there any hypothetical injustice or disaster fueled in large part by religion---no matter how outlandish it seems---that would get you to reconsider and even wish you had been more active, when you had the chance, to stop that injustice or disaster? Anything that would make you think it was worth having a few uncomfortable conversations with friends, if it resulted in saving and improving the lives of others? Or would the "As long as they are not imposing on me then I don't care" attitude always remain prevalent, no matter what?

At no point did I say, live and let live, or encourage passivity. What I did was suggest a strategy that might actually work, as opposed to a strategy that I'm sure won't.

Those questions above were not addressed to you specifically, it was for anyone who adopted the “as long as they are not enforcing their religion on me, I do not care about their religion” view. Others on this forum do hold that attitude.

The strategy that you are “sure” wouldn’t work, I agree would not work. It never was my position that just being critical of religious beliefs would be enough to get our crises resolved. It is one very important piece of the puzzle though. You are right that we need to offer alternative views that will be more appealing to people, and that satisfy them in similar ways psychologically that religious beliefs do. Where you keep saying that we need to “focus” on the latter, I am saying we need to focus on *both.* Not just one or the other, but *both.*

 

[Brian63]

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

What I have actually been saying is that it is one area, among many others, that we should focus more efforts on than we presently are.

God is only an afterthought in Christianity.

One belief does not simply lead to the other in a linear fashion, instead they complement and enhance and reinforce each other in a positive-feedback loop.

But that cannot be the reason. That makes no sense to me.

That position makes no sense to me either, which is why I never argued for it. You keep rebutting it though, so it is a strawman position you are arguing against, not the real position.

You can create all this without needing to resort to a god. That's how you'll beat religion. Or, I'll reformulate it. If you try to kill religion any other way, you will fail.

Another strawman.

Religion is not something that will ever be entirely “beaten” or “killed.” That was not at all my position, that it can be. Various psychological motivations in our minds will always be present which lead to religious beliefs enhancing themselves, it is a product of our evolutionary history which we cannot undue. We will always have some degrees of religious beliefs, religious influences in our world. Please re-read that sentence:

We will always have some degrees of religious beliefs, religious influences in our world.

While we almost certainly cannot outright kill or eliminate religious beliefs entirely, we can still lessen its impact and harm. That is why I favor atheists becoming more proactive in *both* publicly criticizing religious beliefs that otherwise go unchallenged, *and also* offering up alternative methods of satisfying the needs that religions (superficially) fulfill.

Not focusing on just one or just the other, but *both.*

 

[Brian63]

From earlier---

It's not a question of that. It's a question of changing what you can change, and not trying to change that which you can't. You can only change yourself.

You can also help others to become more motivated to change themselves. The work that other people engage in (on various charitable causes) helps inspire me to contribute also.

Also, you keep confusing religious faith with politics. I'm not discussing the politics.

Then you are overlooking a significant part of the problem. Religious beliefs and politics are heavily intertwined. They are different aspects of a person’s worldview, but they reinforce each other as well. We need to address both, not just one or the other.

Until secularists start secular programmes and groups for spiritual training and spiritual work, the Christians win on walkover.

Great, let’s start secular programs. We can do that *in addition to* openly challenging bad beliefs. We do not have to do one and not the other. Let’s do both.

 

[southernhybrid]

Believe me when I tell you that atheists have been trying for many decades to start secular groups. Atlanta Freethought Society has been around for at least thirty or more years, but it's still a rather small group of people that get together to listen to a lecture once a month and then share lunch. At times they tried to do some charity work, but there was never much participation. We have a small group in my small city that gets together once a month for dinner. People come and go and never tell us why they don't come back. Only a small number of us have been members since 2009 when the group started. Atheists really are like cats when it comes to trying to herd them. We just don't do the organized group thing very well, although we do like to get together and talk for hours.

I was a member of a Humanist group in Atlanta for many years. Over the years, the group became smaller as people died off, left the area or lost interest, so we finally disbanded and donated what we had left to the Atlanta Freethought Society. I was a member of that group for years too. I was treasurer of the Humanist group for three years and it was close to impossible to get enough money to pay our meager expenses. How do you think we can change this, when atheists have so little in common, other than enjoying talking a lot and discussing almost anything under the sun? I'm serious. It's been tried so many times with such little success, plus most of the groups I've joined are primarily made up of nerdy white people, with one or two token minority members. Then there is a group of black nonbelievers in Atlanta. They say they welcome white people but my guess is they have few if any white members. I've met the leader and she's a good speaker, but again, my impression is the group primarily enjoys socializing. And, just like the mostly white group, the black nonbelievers seem to be very educated, thoughtful people. That's a good thing but it won't change the rest of the world.

Where is the diversity in the atheist community? What do we have to offer the poor? What about people who aren't educated or who don't have the intelligence to understand complex things? What if their religion is the only thing that gives them joy? Religion gives them hope, often charity. We agree that it's false hope but to them it seems real and it gives their lives meaning and an emotional outlet. They are so organized because they have some common mythologies, which allows them to find their own in-group. I see no reason to expect this to change. I'm not even sure it's desirable. The fundamentalist groups are slowly dying out. That's a good thing, but I see no harm in the more liberal, tolerant branches of religion.

I like my atheist friends and I like my Christian friends. I see no benefit to try and force any of them to change. I'm not trying to be difficult. It's just what I see based on my years of experience.

While I realize you are trying to promote positive change, I don't agree with your method or feel it would be effective. As usual the cats can't be herded.

 

[skepticalbip]

Believe me when I tell you that atheists have been trying for many decades to start secular groups. Atlanta Freethought Society has been around for at least thirty or more years, but it's still a rather small group of people that get together to listen to a lecture once a month and then share lunch. At times they tried to do some charity work, but there was never much participation. We have a small group in my small city that gets together once a month for dinner. People come and go and never tell us why they don't come back. Only a small number of us have been members since 2009 when the group started. Atheists really are like cats when it comes to trying to herd them. We just don't do the organized group thing very well, although we do like to get together and talk for hours.

... snip ...

That is quite understandable. Groups form over common interests. The more passionately held the interests are, the more easily formed and coherent the group will be. Atheists, at least the atheists I know, never even think of their atheism unless the subject of god or religion is brought up by someone else. So atheism would be a piss poor and weak focus for a group to be formed around. Church groups are easy to form because many religious people think about (or even build their lives around) their religion throughout their day. Religion is very important to the religious but, for atheists, their atheism isn't something that they dwell on.

If you want to form a group to help the poor then let that be the focus. It will attract those who care deeply about helping the poor whether they are religious, atheists, or whatever. OTOH, if the focus is religious opinions (either positive or negative) with a side activity being helping the poor then the number of people that will be attracted will be drastically diminished.

 

[Brian63]

Believe me when I tell you that atheists have been trying for many decades to start secular groups…

Many of them have been successful too. In recent months I have been watching more episodes of the Atheist Experience podcasts and they have been growing in popularity as well, and also meet with increasing numbers of people after each show at local restaurants. This past March 23rd was deemed Atheist Day for individuals to come out as such. There are atheist matches and protests (referenced on that last episode of the Atheist Experience) where roughly 100 atheists joined together.

The particular atheist organization that you have the most personal involvement and history with may not have succeeded, but many others still are. If you want to know better what makes them work, that is a good question to ask them. Send them an email, for instance. Write a letter and inquire about it. If you do not personally understand the mechanics of how such a movement can work, that is not at all grounds for declaring that it cannot work. Especially when there are clear examples where they do.

What if their religion is the only thing that gives them joy?

Then help them find other things that also give them joy, and which do not carry the harm that religions do.

The fundamentalist groups are slowly dying out. That's a good thing, but I see no harm in the more liberal, tolerant branches of religion.

The moderately-bad religious beliefs still grant social and cultural and political permissions to the very-bad religious beliefs. They both largely hold some foundational views in common, to varying extents---that God exists, that we must obey God, that religious views should steer political decisions in different ways (like having "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance).

The moderate and the fundamentalist religious believers will not challenge each other on those foundational views---because they hold them in common. If they do get challenged, it will be coming from people who disagree with them.

Keep in mind also that religious beliefs can change over time too, or even quickly in some cases---so at one point a moderate believer may convert into a more fundamentalist believer. Or a fundamentalist can change to a moderate. It depends on what other life circumstances are present around them. It is a mistake to look at moderates and think they will remain so all their lives. Many of them will convert to more fundamentalist (and harmful) views, because they already held the presuppositions above about religions---that God exists, we must obey God, etc. They are susceptible to adopting an even more harmful worldview than they already hold, because they never challenged the foundations of either worldview. If we atheists do challenge those foundations, they will see there is a reasonable alternative available as well.

I see no benefit to try and force any of them to change.

Nobody here was advocating to “force” anyone to change. It is instead to encourage them to want to change on their own volition.

Suppose a friend of yours is a drug addict, but the drugs bring an immediate and existential relief to them, even if just momentarily. At the same time, you know it is harming them and poses a threat to themselves and others (if they drive while stoned, for instance), while they are oblivious to that fact and just go on, because they find joy in it. Would you be okay with that as long as they did not try to enforce their addiction on you through politics? Would that be your attitude? What is the relevant difference between an addiction to harmful physical substances and an addiction to harmful worldviews, so that we should be proactive in the former and passive in the latter?

 

[Brian63]

Atheists, at least the atheists I know, never even think of their atheism unless the subject of god or religion is brought up by someone else. So atheism would be a piss poor and weak focus for a group to be formed around.

How about people who are afraid of doubting their religious beliefs, who feel alone and isolated and scared, are currently in the closet about their beliefs, are losing their family and friends because of their change in religious beliefs, who struggle currently with anxieties about death and hell and meaning of life issues, who were indoctrinated into holding views that they feel bitterness about even decades later? I am personally a member of such a group on FB where people have told such tales, and how joining with others who held similar backgrounds and views has helped them mentally and emotionally and intellectually, and they regained confidence and are learning how to manage their lives more appropriately. Do you really think these groups have a "piss poor and weak focus" to exist?

 

[skepticalbip]

Atheists, at least the atheists I know, never even think of their atheism unless the subject of god or religion is brought up by someone else. So atheism would be a piss poor and weak focus for a group to be formed around.

How about people who are afraid of doubting their religious beliefs, who feel alone and isolated and scared, are currently in the closet about their beliefs, are losing their family and friends because of their change in religious beliefs, who were indoctrinated into holding views that they feel bitterness about even decades later? I am personally a member of such a group on FB where people have told such tales, and how joining with others who held similar backgrounds and views has helped them mentally and emotionally and intellectually, and they regained confidence and are learning how to manage their lives more appropriately. Do you really think these groups are "piss poor and weak focus" to exist?

That sounds like a support group - a group formed to help deal with common personal problems. A social group like southernhybred (and I) was describing is a quite different animal. Such social groups are people who come together as a celebration of their common interests.

 

[Brian63]

Yes, atheists gathering together do serve as a support group for each other. That is one purpose they serve among others. That is part of the point of why they should exist, why it is good that they do. We can also be more proactive and vocal about our views as well, which will encourage others to understand our views better and to relate to them more. It causes many shifts, simultaneously. Others who had secretly held such views will be more willing to express publicly the same views now. Others who had misunderstandings and disagreements (based on their misunderstandings) will sympathize with our views more and not feel so justified to impose their own views onto us. The more outspoken and active, the better the chance of success.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Believe me when I tell you that atheists have been trying for many decades to start secular groups. Atlanta Freethought Society has been around for at least thirty or more years, but it's still a rather small group of people that get together to listen to a lecture once a month and then share lunch. At times they tried to do some charity work, but there was never much participation. We have a small group in my small city that gets together once a month for dinner. People come and go and never tell us why they don't come back. Only a small number of us have been members since 2009 when the group started. Atheists really are like cats when it comes to trying to herd them. We just don't do the organized group thing very well, although we do like to get together and talk for hours.

... snip ...

That is quite understandable. Groups form over common interests. The more passionately held the interests are, the more easily formed and coherent the group will be. Atheists, at least the atheists I know, never even think of their atheism unless the subject of god or religion is brought up by someone else. So atheism would be a piss poor and weak focus for a group to be formed around. Church groups are easy to form because many religious people think about (or even build their lives around) their religion throughout their day. Religion is very important to the religious but, for atheists, their atheism isn't something that they dwell on.

If you want to form a group to help the poor then let that be the focus. It will attract those who care deeply about helping the poor whether they are religious, atheists, or whatever. OTOH, if the focus is religious opinions (either positive or negative) with a side activity being helping the poor then the number of people that will be attracted will be drastically diminished.

If the focus of the group is that no one likes to collect stamps it won't go far.