This has been interesting...

[highplainsdem]

I'm responding to a number of replies to what I posted earlier in a separate, new topic because I don't have time to respond to all of them individually, because the replies to me often tend to overlap, and because some of the replies I've seen indicate that the person posting that message hadn't seen something I'd said elsewhere that answered their criticism/questions earlier.

I posted here originally after looking at this forum because I'd noticed that although it's labeled a general Religion forum, it's apparently dominated by atheists who are posting here rather than in the separate Atheists forum, which is much less active.

That's okay. Unless the type of arguments being posted here are usually shutting down the discussion for anyone other than atheists, discouraging non-atheists from posting or driving them away if they try to join the discussion.

Which is why I brought up the subject of proselytizing. Which I was already aware has been a matter of debate among atheists, many of whom are quite aware that certain types of arguments, as they try to convince others of the correctness of their beliefs, can be off-putting, ending dialogues or even backfiring. And I was personally aware it can be off-putting because of a period in my own life, after I left the church I'd been raised in, when I thought it was fun, and thought it asserted my superiority, to make similar arguments in favor of atheism and against religion in general.

I didn't think a post about the problems created by that type of proselytizing would be so controversial, or get as many responses as it did.

Honestly, I thought the general reaction here would be recognition that yes, some arguments pushing atheism can backfire and drive people away rather than even beginning to convince them.

Instead, I was told that atheists can't proselytize because they don't have a belief system.

Again, there's been plenty of debate among atheists for years about whether it's helpful to proselytize, and recognition by many atheists that they can come across like religious proselytizers. Which is why I posted a couple of op-ed pieces by atheists.

And as for not having a belief system... The typical foundation of atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) is that science has not come up with any proof that any power or consciousness people might label God exists, and therefore it doesn't.

Which is an argument that presumes our current level of scientific understanding would be capable of thoroughly understanding the power underlying the universe, including the multiple dimensions many scientists posit exist, and that IS a belief system. Personally, considering how much our understanding of the universe has advanced in recent centuries, and how much it's likely to advance in the future (assuming we don't destroy our own civilization), I think that in the future this current level of understanding will look fairly primitive, that there'll have been advances in understanding what seems mysterious now. It's also likely scientists will still be finding new areas to explore that seem mysterious to them. I think we have about as much chance of understanding the complete universe as a small marine creature in a tide pool has of understanding the world's oceans and complete ecosystem. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, or utilize what we learn, especially when it helps us in our immediate environment. Does mean we should keep in mind that science isn't all-knowing. Or that something that looks "supernatural" and impossible now might seem perfectly natural with a better understanding.

We don't even understand how our own minds work, very well. As I mentioned earlier, it wasn't that long ago that people who considered themselves scientific tended to ridicule the possibility that meditation might have health benefits. Especially because of its association with Eastern religions.

Hell, we don't really understand the placebo effect. Even though many people who consider themselves scientific like to say that anything positive that comes from alternative therapies is due merely to the placebo effect.

Now, back to the tone of the arguments...

It's impossible to read this forum, or many arguments in favor of atheism, without running across the assumption -- sometimes very explicitly stated -- that people who aren't atheists are illogical/irrational at best, and probably stupid, and definitely intellectually inferior to atheists.

For some reason that tends to alienate people, though that effect can sometimes seem baffling to those intelligent atheists who are convinced of their intellectual superiority.

If you're a "Big Bang Theory" fan, you might recall an episode where Sheldon is desperate to meet Stephen Hawking, convinced Hawking is his only intellectual equal, and he tries to explain to his long-suffering friends that he's always been like a human surrounded by animals. He doesn't understand why that offends the people around him, even when Penny finallly tells him bluntly that he's being a condescending jerk.

There was a recent post here with a meme meant to suggest that people who have any religious faith are equivalent to a dog that thinks its bark has magical powers. Wow, that wouldn't offend any non-atheists considering joining a forum supposedly for general discussions of religion, would it?

Anway, if the people upset with what I've posted here still don't understand why certain types of arguments promoting atheism are as likely to offend others as proselytizing by religious evangelists convinced of the correctness of their belief, then you'll probably never understand.

I know there are atheists who do understand that, though.

And I think it would help this forum if those sorts of arguments were more likely to be found in the Atheists forum, not this one.

Especially since we're all part of a collection of forums focused on the Democratic Party, and many of the Democrats we admire are people of faith, and anything but stupid or irrational.