Think about it… or get irrational?
September 27, 2007
A headnote: This author is a busy person and is not often available and randomly reappears.
For some time now, I have had a good christian friend, born-again even, and we get along well. Anyway, like any born-again, he tries to convert me whenever he spends time alone with me (which is very rare in my life arrangement).
So, I thought I would catalog the clash of proselytizer and atheist.
It started out simply enough, he had no idea I was an atheist, and we didn’t really spend much time on things like that. A very light friendship. Then, we got into a fight after a class because we had been disagreeing about the subject matter (it was a participation class, everyone was involved). The subject? Theology. No surprise then.
Now, you would think that would be the end of the friendship, but we’re both reasonable people, and we continued to converse. From time to time, he’d try to convert me. It started out with rational arguments (oddly enough, this born-again believes in evolution and a spherical earth that is not the center of the universe). Of course, I provided needles for each balloon.
You would think this would cause frustration and an attempt at F&B (fire and brimstone). Actually, he was a bit more respectable than that. But, since he couldn’t win with rational arguments, started in on emotional and motivational arguments. For example, as an unusual person in my own right, I had relationship troubles, and so he would tell me that if I believed in Jesus and made him my lord and savior, Jesus would help me with the relationship. And then we started to go downhill.
Why? He was disgusted with my continued lack of effort to accept Jesus. I explained to him that I couldn’t accept as my lord and savior something that I believe has even less real historical foundation than Santa Claus (at least we’re fairly certain there was a St. Nicholas, or am I behind on that?). Anyway, he insulted me, said I was an atheist because I was a coward, and also because I wanted to be different. That… hurt the friendship a lot. We haven’t spoken since that. I’m still an atheist, he’s still a born-again.
So, it goes like this:
1) Rational arguments, as that’s the most obvious way to win, and the one that works best with a cool head.
2a) Emotional/Temptation arguments. Using desires against the mark, and also aiming for things that are less rational, in an attempt to appeal with something that isn’t controlled by a cool head.
2b (which didn’t happen)) Give up and move right into F&B
3) Insulting, Guilting, trying to find a crack in the mark’s armor, to make them give in to your methods.
Any thoughts?
Comments
6 Responses to “Think about it… or get irrational?”
Got something to say?
-
Atheist Blogroll
This is an all too familiar chain of events, Alpha Orionis. If given the choice between thinking about something or becoming irrational about something, always choose thought. It may lead to unpopularity, ostracizing, and brooding silence from people wherever you go, and yet it’s still always the better choice.
It seems, by your retelling of events, that it wasn’t just your friend trying to force his religion upon you - he was witnessing to you, and you pushed right back. Good for you! I hate seeing good atheists roll over for pushy worshipers. Just because we don’t have a holy symbol doesn’t mean that we just sit around wishing we had one, and it does my heart good to know that you “provided needles for each balloon.”
So, beyond thinking about it or getting irrational, there’s another either/or statement that I wrestle with to this day because of exactly this kind of situation. Saying yes really isn’t much of an option until someone brings me proof of a god. So the choices are: remain silent… or evangelize right back at them? This is such a pivotal moment for an atheist: are you the person who will, for the sake of peace and harmony, hold your tongue, even follow along just to make them happy enough to leave you alone? Are you willing to just let it slide under the radar and hope it all just blows over?
Or do you tell them that emotional well-being, spiritual wholeness, and a clean conscience are the province of atheists, and even better, without a cost? Do you invite the inevitable criticism of the loud, strong atheist: “You’re evangelizing just like they are!”
I applaud your choice: give him all the reasons you feel so confident in your atheism. I wish I could say there was always such an easy answer for this one. Most of the folks here know that I am often the loudest proponent of atheism, and rarely miss an opportunity to attack faith in whatever form I find. But that’s online, in the safety and security of my own home, and, admittedly, with little personal consequence. Real life has the habit of providing very different circumstances. I’ve had to hold my tongue, too, much as it pains me to admit, or else I’d never get emails from my family again. No substantially different details, just a familiar repetition of events - this time with family members via email. We eventually called it a draw. I’ve had to concentrate and keep focus just to avoid offending people in certain situations - when you need a car loan and there aren’t banks lined up to give you credit, it’s probably not wise to pick a fight with the one guy in town who will just because of all the crucifixes in his office.
It’s a muddy world, and anyone that tells you that there are absolute answers for such a complex question is trying to sell you something. You need to be able to adapt, look for solutions that aren’t readily available, and be clever. And even then sometimes you end up biting the bullet and being unable to do it your own way.
In this certain light, atheism is much like a religion: all religions hate each other. Sure, they try to pay lip service sometimes to the idea of unity and plurality, but in the end, we all think everyone else is wrong except for the people who agree with us. So a Christian, who in this country, is very accustomed to having his cockamamie belief system regarded as respectable and established, will feel threatened by anyone who openly disagrees. You don’t have to go as far as saying that his religion is cockamamie, either - all you have to do is say that you’re an atheist, and the Christian already knows the big, crucial point: you think he’s wrong about god. Of course, he thinks you’re wrong, too. Same with a Muslim, a Jew, a pagan, and everyone else: as an open atheist, you are a living tribute to the little kid who said that the emperor wore no clothes. And that’s a real scare for people who have spent their entire lives admiring those clothes, arguing over the finest details, and convincing others that one garment is better than the other.
The atheist, simply by being, is a statement: “You’re all nuts.”
But with any other established religion, at least the person knows they’re dealing with someone who’s just as nuts, but just a different flavor. Christian or otherwise, they all have silly rituals - they just have different silly rituals. The atheist, though, is perfectly capable of proving, just by continuing to breathe, that religion is simply not necessary in any form, and that they look rather foolish doing all those silly rituals. We threaten, just by saying we’re atheists, not just their religion, but the very necessity of their religion. And that’s not something they’re prepared to defend - because, as we know very well, religion is indefensibly unnecessary.
I know it sucks that your friendship ended up on life support because of this debate. The simple consolation is that there are only two topics that are so serious that disagreements can and will lead to such things: politics and religion. (And baseball, if you live between New York and Boston.) The bigger, and better, consolation is that you don’t have to sacrifice half your life and a sizable chunk of assets to honor some fictional deity. You can instead spend that time having ice cream. Or wild, craven, unspeakable sex, whichever comes first. (Ah, benefits of atheism.)
Eh, turn it around on him. The Heathen Preacher approach works fairly well in my experience. Talk about casting stones or loving thy neighbor as thyself.
It seems that where hypocrisy is concerned, two wrongs often make at least one right.
I think, before I could win this argument, I’ll have to be comfortable with atheism myself.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I’m confused on any points or anything, I’m simply saying that atheism is not a satisfying conclusion to me. In fact, I at one point said to someone or other “[atheism] is the worst of all possible conclusions, but it is the only one I feel could be right.”
No doubt I just need to get a better perspective on things.
My comments are actually addressed mainly to the commenters. The original post is whole, and typical, and important. Although in my experience I can say that I’ve had a lot less people start with anything rational. Most do go for emotional or even fire and brimstone, and usually with a smile plastered across their faces as though it’s perfectly fine.
Darque: The point you bring up about a choice is extremely important, and one I wrestle with constantly. I tend not to end up in any sort of argument with complete strangers in the real world (online, like you, I can be as outspoken as I wish), so most of my arguments (and I use the term in its pure form, not to be confused with a fight) end up being with people I would consider friends, colleagues, or at least people I respect in some form or another. This colors the matter, as I honestly have no desire to offend people I care about. It’s not a generalized fear of offense, because as one who is not easily offended by opinions, I’m don’t put much weight into the whole idea.
But it does make it hard for me because I DO want to hit back. I do want to argue. But I don’t want to disrespect someone I care for. So in the end I end up saying very little instead of saying what I truly believe. I also end up bottling things in.
At my place of work, which is an IT company, I have an extremely brilliant, scientifically-minded boss. We have long, deep conversations on technology, medicine, the future, and every connection. He has a major in cybernetics, and we have similar viewpoints. But from a couple small comments I know he’s a republican, and I’ve heard references to going with his family to church. There’s also a bible sitting on the bookshelf, sandwiched in between all the technology books. Our office manager, who handles phones and whatnot, is quite clearly Christian, as she has psalms and whatnot plastered all over her desk (although she’s also heavily tattooed and her husband looks like a grown-up grunge skater, and they’re both VERY cool people). This puts me in a spot where I’m nervous to discuss the topic around the office, as now it’s my job that’s in line.
Still, the subject did come up when riding along with another boss of mine recently. I revealed that I’m Atheist, and he revealed that he’s Agnostic. While I felt that gave us some common ground, there was a comment he made that gave me pause, made me uncomfortable, and forced me to lose my strength for a moment. He said, “In my opinion, it takes as much faith to be an Atheist as it does to be a Christian.” He was basically stating that believe there was no God required a leap of faith, since there’s no proof.
My mind went blank, and all I could do was halfheartedly agree with him. Within a half-hour I hated myself for it, because my rationality returned and I was reminded of all the reasons this wasn’t true. For one, one could argue that Atheist doesn’t necessarily mean you believe there is NO god, but simply that you don’t HAVE a belief in god (there’s a subtle, but important difference there). But more importantly for me is the fact that when you discount all the poor evidence for a god, you’re left with only a whole bunch of people who believed the same evidence you didn’t to tell you there is one. In that case that discounts their word, as well, since their belief is based off of what failed the test for you. Which leaves you with nothing. It takes no faith for me to believe there’s no god when presented with no proper evidence there is. Does it take faith for me to believe there’s no chocolate pudding fairy floating over my head right now, waiting for me to be a good person so she can give me my just desserts?
But when faced with the question by someone I respected and worked with, I faltered. And that’s pretty tricky to deal with.
And Alpha Orionis:
I understand what you’re saying, and it’s something that’ll take time. I halfway agree with you. I would rather be wrong about things like life after death, and there being someone who actually genuinely cares for us and is looking out for us. For quite some time Atheism has looked like a very cold, dark place for me. But over time bits and pieces have fallen into place to make it more fulfilling. A lot of what I’ve read online has given me new outlooks. Penn Jillette’s brilliant recording for This I Believe was a real turning point for me, because it reminded me of just how much we gain from this perspective. I believe we have GREATER respect for the grandeur of the world around us because we accept the reality of it instead of attributing it to some higher power. I believe we respect life more than any religious person can because we know this is ALL we have, and we have to enjoy and respect every moment of it because when it’s gone it will NOT be replaced with something better. We don’t throw away these short years like they’re some sort of test. It’s little things like that that add up for me and make me happy with the path my brain has put me on. And I worded it that way for a reason. I didn’t choose to be an Atheist. My brain simply can’t accept faith in something without proof, or even evidence. So lacking that, I have no choice but Atheism. And I’m at peace with that.
TurboFool,
I wouldn’t worry too much about you and your boss… Most Atheists are Agnostics and most Agnostics are Atheists, strictly speaking. The denials of this fact stem stem from misunderstandings of the definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism.
Your boss is correct if you use the popular definitions of Atheism and Faith. Too bad that the popular definition differs so much from the etymological definition.
Strictly speaking, there are no “degrees” of faith. Faith is simply Belief despite the absence of Proof. It takes as much faith to believe in god as it does to believe “There is no god”. It takes as much faith to believe a scientist’s research paper as it does to believe that the wires you are about to touch were not re-energized between the time you opened the breaker and the time you returned to your DIY electrical project. (Note to self: leave a note on the breaker box next time)
Faith is (strictly speaking) black-and-white, pass/fail, yin/yang, a true dichotomy. There are no shades of gray, or any valid alternatives. We operate on faith all the time: we trust that our mechanic properly tightened the lug nuts, that the gas pump is properly calibrated, that our internet connection will be available. Most of the time our faith is rewarded - sometimes it is not. Those who sell their food stamps to buy lottery tickets are rewarded much less often than the rest of us…
When you break it down, the definition of Theism is “Belief in God”; the definition of Atheism is “Lacking Theism”; so an Atheist “Lacks (belief in God)”.
It seems like you’re fairly new to Atheism - have you heard of the concepts of Weak and Strong Atheism?
Weak Atheism is also called Implicit Atheism - the majority of Atheists can be categorized as Weak Atheists. A Weak Atheist will say “I have no belief in God”. The logical reasoning for this position is that no valid evidence has been presented that demonstrates God’s existence. The Strict definition of Atheism includes weak atheists. The popular definition of Agnosticism implies a conclusion of weak atheism.
The “popular” definition of Atheism is consistent with Strong Atheists, who are a small subset of all atheists. Strong Atheists say “There is no God”, and claim positive proof of God’s non-existence. Often, this proof consists of omnipotence/omniscience/omni-benevolence paradoxes. While this may be sufficient to positively deny the Jewish/Christian/Muslim concept of God, it is insufficient to deny the existence of a supernatural being that does not possess these characteristics.
You said you faltered - another way of looking at it is to say you exercised the better part of valor and shut up before you got yourself in trouble with your boss. Remnants of our fight-or-flight response, our instinct under pressure is to shut up and run away. In today’s world, that is manifested by sheepishly agreeing with those who have some kind of power over us. Natural evolution has yet to catch up with our ability to reason.
Good idea — avoid all discussions on religion and politics at work. Of course, since no god/gods/powers/spirits exist — religion must reduce to something: mental disorders, cultural delusions, historical persistence of cultural norms . . . and political ideology.
bipolar2
** To-god or not-to-god ain’t the question **
That’s mere scripticism — geeks parsing Batman at comix conventions.
I can have opinions about a fictitious character “Hamlet” as presented by Shakespeare in his play, ‘The Tragedy of Hamlet.’ I can also have opinions about a mythological being “God” as presented in the synoptic gospels of ‘The New Testament.’
[As collections of putative sacred writings the Jewish Scriptures, the Koran, the Dhammapada, the Bhagavad-Gita are subject to the same analysis.]
All I know about these characters is what I can read in pages directly devoted to them. I can no more find the “God” of NT by doing cosmological research than I can disinter “Hamlet’s” bones in a chapel at Elsinore.
> the obscenity of comic book monotheism
When Nietzsche said, “God is dead” he added a gloss — “the belief that belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable.”
The almighty lords of dualism: Yahweh, Allah, God are moral equivalents of comic book super-villains. Yag is dead. The remaining sacred pulp enjoys fanatical cult followings. And, theology is mere fan fiction.
Don’t however mistake political ideology for religious belief. Wherever political ideology reduces to politico-theology, secular society fails. Secularism corrupts. Tolerance capitulates to evil. Only the pure (= self-righteous) are saved.
> It’s the ideology, stupid!
Holy text is merely pretext. Ideology masquerading as religion bamboozles the masses, the media. Telemullahs there, televangelists here.
Real terrorist threats in the US: xians undermining the Constitution, trashing biological science, and perverting education to suit a totalitarian ideology of social control and cultural domination, graciously underwritten by generous grants from MIXR, military-investor & xian-right
The disgusting Bushite dictatorship manqué represents only a failed prototype.
Home-grown christo-fascists threaten the life of the Republic far more than all so-called Islamo-fascists combined.
bipolar2