Preaching Atheism

[warpus]

Way to annoy at least 2 religions there warpus!

Wait till you read my new testament:

Eat beef, drink tea, and be merry.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well beef thing will annoy the Hindus as well as the non-followers of baconism.

I don't think anyone objects to tea.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Have you ever doubted that you are wrong?

Odd sentence, but I'll take this question as: have you ever doubted about your view of the world.

Yes! Of course! I most certainly considered being wrong about a great number of things.

Have you ever had doubts about your faith?

edit: I also feel kind of piffed you skipped the question I had for you in the OP, namely; "Is promoting doubt offensive to those who have faith? "

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Doubting you are wrong = thinking you may be correct by the way folks

 

[Winner]

Way to annoy at least 2 religions there warpus!

Perhaps we should put together a menu that will annoy most major religions. What does it have to include?

Pork and beef, alcohol, what else?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Homosexuality and fornication of course.

Not smoking pot (annoy those Rastafarians).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Doubting you are wrong = thinking you may be correct by the way folks

Way ahead of you

 

[warpus]

I don't think anyone objects to tea.

The Mormons hate tea. That's why there are no Mormons in England.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

No wonder they have such sparkly white teeth (I'm thinking the Osmonds here).

 

[Souron]

How is belief in a deity and his morals any different from belief in morals without the deity? Both require faith in the morals... theists just add one more faith to it: faith in a being from which those morals emanate from. And it makes sense; without a deity, morality and principles cannot be absolute... on the other hand, by having a supreme moral authority, it becomes possible for their to be an absolute value for "morality."

Right, which is bad, because the belief in a supreme moral authority is unfounded. So religious people are less likely to reevaluate their morals.

I don't think you have to be incapable of critical thought or skepticism to be a theist... maybe to be a mindless theist controlled by a "prophet" or authority figure, but not a theist in itself. The constant rambling of "atheism is the way" only helps my reasoning that atheism might as well be as much a religion as those it fights... holy war, except now it's belief in presence vs. belief in absence, rather than two or more beliefs in presence.

Atheism, real atheism and not some hypothetical that no one actually follows, promotes doubt, not belief in absence. But that does not mean that there isn't a degree of confidence in the disbelief.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You don't even have to preach atheism per se, you only have to teach critical thinking and healthy scepticism. Atheism will follow

Or at least the religious beliefs will become tempered by the facts so there aren't so many glaring incongruities. There are many eminent scientists who are religious. The two aren't mutually incompatible.

But I agree that preaching atheism isn't the way to accomplish what should be the real goal: that of educating people to be able to think for themselves. After all, the lightbulb has to want to change.

 

[warpus]

Atheism, real atheism and not some hypothetical that no one actually follows, promotes doubt, not belief in absence. But that does not mean that there isn't a degree of confidence in the disbelief.

Atheism doesn't promote anything. It's a stance, that's it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I promote Doubt because I like doubt. Doubt is one the most important characteristic when you want to make progress. Otherwise you'll just stay with what you know without question, without change.

It is what led me towards Atheism and I believe it could lead others to it.

 

[Souron]

Atheism doesn't promote anything. It's a stance, that's it.

Atheists then. Atheists promote doubt. Like in the OP.

And I mean that generally, not universally, so individual exceptions are not a counter proof.

Does that satisfy your insistence on formal and precise use of language?

 

[Angst]

You don't even have to preach atheism per se, you only have to teach critical thinking and healthy scepticism. Atheism will follow

You don't even have to preach Nirvana per se, you only have to teach critical thinking and healthy scepticism. Nirvana will follow

You don't even have to preach Jesus per se, you only have to teach critical thinking and healthy scepticism. Jesus will follow

You don't even have to preach cake per se, you only have to teach critical thinking and healthy scepticism. Cake will follow

 

[Leonel]

How can you preach nothing?

 

[cardgame]

no, none of those work.

 

[warpus]

Atheists then. Atheists promote doubt. Like in the OP.

And I mean that generally, not universally, so individual exceptions are not a counter proof.

Does that satisfy your insistence on formal and precise use of language?

When faced with a philosophy or religion that requires the belief in a God, then atheists are doubtful, sure, cause.. I mean.. they are atheist.

I would say that only some go around promoting doubt, though.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

We got taught about critical thinking in English class at school (when analysing non-fiction pieces).

 

[Cheetah]

You don't even have to preach atheism per se, you only have to teach critical thinking and healthy scepticism. Atheism will follow

Another option is to point out inconsistencies in their faith. The Socratic way: Asking them to explain to you which inconsistency is correct and how they know it.


Link to video.

Seriously, watch this video. It's mindbreaking!

PS: Welcome back Winner.

I don't think anyone objects to tea.

Depends. A few years after the founding of Teaism, disagreement among the clergy resulted in Teaism dividing itself into Black Teaists and Green Teaists. So it would depend which kind of tea is prescribed.

How can you preach nothing?

That's the way of the Tao.