Just so that we're clear... (please read anyone that's been following this whole Pascal discussion with me)

Question

Now that you kind people have educated me a tiny bit on Pascal, I really don't see how its relevant. Pascal's argument was that it's safer to believe incase its correct, which as you guys state is inherently flawed because it assumes Christianity is the only religion that COULD be correct. If I have that wrong, please tell me, as I'm sure you will!! Now, MY question was merely me trying to understand the benefit of atheists actively TRYING to convince or educate others of their own beliefs or lack thereof. I guess I worded it wrong, or in a way that made it sound as if I'm slanted. I did not mean it that way and please accept my apology. Do you guys see the difference in what I'm talking about?

You guys keep replying as if I am a Christian trying to sway you. I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE OF ANYTHING, GET IT?

I'm writing this portion of details after having read several answers.. and FINALLY I am getting into the kinds of answers I was looking for, INFORMATIVE ones that gave me SPECIFIC reasons why atheists view it as beneficial to educate others on their belief system. I guess I was using the concern Christians have for non-Christians burning in Hell as an example of why THEY think its beneficial to educate; so, I was asking of an equal-but-different reason on why atheists feel the same way about their own thoughts. Thanks for all the serious answers.

Answer 1

No problem Linz, hang in there.

The reason Atheists actively try to educate religious people about the flaws in their beliefs is because of history and current events.

Historically Christianity has been harmful, and if followed through with complete logical abandonment and utter faith, as prescribed in the bible it will eventually lead to violence.

We can see this in Islam today through suicide bombers who believe in their religion soooo much that they are easily led astray and believe teachers who tell them they will go strait to heaven if they die while killing infidels. Christians used to believe the same thing, and could do again if they really believe that Revelations is coming to pass.

Christianity has also, historically been responsible for stopping progress in medicine, science and technology through the ages, which has been very detrimental to civilization.

So Atheists are trying to help religious people understand that the results of blind faith are not all good, and do cause harm, and that logical thought is a way to over come this.

Answer 2

Hi,

Former Atheist here to save the day. I do believe I may be able to help you understand why Atheists try to get their point across to Christians. The Christian motivation for witnessing, as you know, is essentially to try to help save someones soul from eternal damnation. If seen that way, it is hard to condemn them for that. Likewise, many Atheists actually have just as noble of a reason for sharing their beliefs. You see, they truly believe that this life is IT. That there is nothing else at all, and that if you waste this life by trying to attain an afterlife that doesn't exist, then that would be a HUGE TRAGEDY. In their own way many Atheists are trying to "save" people from wasting the only life they will ever have. It is often very difficult for Atheists and Christians to understand just how similar their motivations are, but I do understand, because I have been both.

So, when you see Atheists trying to convince Christians to "catch a clue", remember that they are trying to do the same thing as the Christians who are trying to get the Atheists to "see the light". They're trying to save each other!

Answer 3

The benefit of atheists arguing their point is the same as humanists or even deists, arguing their point. It is rooted in the belief that a secular society can be much more adapt at responding and adapting to a modern world and changing world.

Also if you truly believe in the value of the individual it makes far more sense to argue for the individuals right to be free of the shackles of an oppressive theology. It scares a human secularist to believe that a person is living a life under the oppressive yoke of some theist organization. Imagine as a good Christian if you saw small child enslaved by a group of people, wouldn't you try to free them, help them gain freedom from the evil vice like grip that these people held over them? Would you do it in the name of Jesus, or would you do it in the name of humanity? From what I've witness most people would save that child not in the name of God, but the name of humanity. Well to many atheists, humanists and even deists, people who don't question their convictions are that enslaved child. It is not a desire to turn you away from God, it is a desire to help you become a free human being.

In this era of mega churches, where councils are meeting almost monthly to pass decrees saying how the faithful must act and even vote, it is hard to not see churches are some part of the industrial complex dedicated more to holding people's actions hostage in an attempt to gain the largest market share. How could a person of conscious sit quietly and let such a horrible assault on basic freedom exist?

What is the difference between Jesus, a man who condemned the Pharisees, a man who warned repeatedly of the danger of blind riotous faith and a human who walks the street warning you of preaches who would remove the spirit of the lord from the scriptures in favor of the letter of the law?

Answer 4

More of this? People already answered you.

This is a place for all to share their views. There are many "benefits" and reasons an atheist would share his/her views. One important one, probably the most important one, is to have an active voice in a world largely populated by believers. People without a voice are not represented and are often misunderstood and vilified.

No apology is necessary, but it was indeed a variation of Pascal's wager that you put out there in your first question.
"Ok, look at it this way. If you AREN'T a Christian, and Christianity turned out to be right, then as an atheist, you're gonna be totally screwed when you die"....

Answer 5

I answered your 2nd question then read your 1st question then found this one. I've not aware of this Pascal thing at all. If it states that a person believes in God just in case there really is a God, this isn't going to save his soul. God doesn't tell us to do things "just in case". The 10 Commandments aren't suggestions. Either you have 100% faith or you have none. There is no gray area. A believer in God can have question for Him and can continually have questions about the history of their church and the founders and their family and such. But if a believer has doubt, they don't have faith.

In high school, I dated an atheist. Nicest guy I ever met. But we knew our relationship would not work long term due to our beliefs. And we respected each other for that. He never thought it was stupid of me to believe in God. He just wanted to be able see God before he believed. He didn't know if the Bible was true or made up. I can understand his thoughts. But since God was in my daily life, we knew that I would want to get married in the church and have children baptized and such. He probably won't.

Linz, I'm not sure what religion you follow. But don't let the atheists here get on your nerves. Some are rational thinkers but many (here) aren't. Just ignore them. I've learned to label my questions by beginning "I have a question for fellow Christians" or "Could Muslims please answer this one?" Some athiests still sneek in but I ignore them. Satan works through the non-believers to get more people to begin to have doubt in the Lord. Don't let this happen to you (if this is the religion you follow)

Peace!

Answer 6

Pascal's argument still applies to an if-then contingency evalution of Christianity. Just because it was not aimed historically at other theological systems of thought than atheism, does not mean that it cannot be used as an example (and it is probably best used as an example to at least raise the issue of rewards/consequences for our choices, as we do use this type of logic frequently in other settings).

The system being analyzed is in effect Christianity vs. any other system, as it could also be used to illustrate differences with other systems as well.

So, no, I would not except the contention that it is not relevant.

Soli Deo Gloria


Didn't see your last question, but this one is pretty clear. It is a good area to talk about, in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of these types of analyses. I think that they are useful, to a point...

Answer 7

That's close enough on Pascal, though it's important to remember that he wasn't really using that as an argument to convert people. More to show that nothing's lost from believing but a lot could be gained.

Another argument against Pascal's Wager, and the response to your question, is that it downplays what the Atheist would lose by claiming to believe in God just to avoid punishment- intellectual integrity. Why try to believe what you don't really believe just to avoid pain or gain a reward?

The Atheist does not believe in any gods, usually because there isn't enough evidence to do so. If other people claim to have the evidence then it's certainly reasonable for us to ask to see it and to challenge its validity if it seems flawed. Even if we don't expect to ever see any such evidence, we can still defend our position and seek to question those who claim they know there's a god.

After all, believers (not all, but many) seek to re-create society to fit their faith. They want us to mandate what their god requires (anything from the Sabbath off to official prayer) and ban what their god despises (homosexuality, abortion, porn, etc.) and they seek to do so not based upon reasoned argument the way you'd expect in democracy but based upon the supposed authority of the Creator. In order to defeat such theocratic tendancies, it's best to start at the beginning and show that there's at least serious doubt about whether the deity exists, let alone what it wants.

Some values many of us have- advancing science, medical research, reducing overpopulation, tolerence, etc.- are threatened by religious dogma. We have, I'd say, an obligation to defend our views. Even if we didn't have a civic duty, it's still being intellectually honest to express your views instead of hiding them because they offend a sensitive majority's comfort.

Answer 8

There are a lot of people out there that don't know what an atheist is.
They have been called devil worshipers...of all things...one can not worship something they not only don't believe in, but feel there is absolutely no question to the 'fact' that there is no God. etc.
So. Atheists feel the need to educate other people that atheism isn't a religion, it isn't a political party, it isn't even a belief. It is what it is.
There are a lot of Christians constantly trying to tell them they are wrong, and of course, no Human ever thinks they are wrong, so in their defense they try to tell the Christians they are wrong. Atheist try to get theist to use logic. Christians try to get atheists to grasp the concept of God without any physical proof which atheist's need. Its a no win situation argumentatively.

Answer 9

You understand Pascal fine now, and why it's a silly argument. We don't try (actively) to convince others to be atheists. They ask, we answer. But if we challenge their beliefs with our answers, is that wrong? Or is it something that they should be asking themselves. I do not put myself as the arbiter of truth, but if I make someone think about the world and the nature of it in some way, that can only be a societal Good. We, though there are noted exceptions, do not want to (de)convert people, but there is a strong urge to tell people what we think. Most of the conflict comes from Christians looking down on us and baiting us with ignorant or (logically) invalid questions. Sorry if we seem harsh, but we get this alot, and it becomes frustrating.

Answer 10

Welcome to R&S. I saw what you were trying to say when I saw your first question. I don't know why some atheists on here take it upon themselves to try to convince people there is no God, but I assume it's for the same reason that religious people try to convince people there IS a God: Out of concern.

For some reason, they feel sorry for religious people. Many of them seem to think that we're so deprived of something, which is why we believe in God, or they think that we simply need more education.

But I don't mind it. They have the freedom to believe what they want, and they help keep the discussion in here from growing stagnant. I mean, seriously, could you IMAGINE what this place would be like if there were no atheists here? It would be so BORING.