1. Comment #85082 by Armhouse on November 4, 2007 at 11:29 pm

I am starting to describe the world as divided between atheists and non-atheists.

I think it puts me on the leading foot and non-atheists on the back foot.

And I am taking back the word atheist as a positive. It is the default position until someone posits proof that the non-atheist position is, in actual fact, the correct one.

Then it will be a matter of proving that one god reigns supreme.

Until then they are all non-atheists and I welcome every recovering non-atheist to the world of rationality and reason with support, friendship and the exchange of knowledge within the real world.

Carry on
V

You are justified in your approach, but do you really see it as a convincing one, in the eyes of the believer? The believer feels the same way you do, in terms of being able to justify your position. While taking this stance might be effective in some circumstances, I think that overall it creates more division than understanding.

I am very much anti-religious, but according to you, I am a "recovering non-atheist." Thanks for making me feel welcome. I am sorry that I do not have the faith to be an atheist, since I am open to other spiritual realms, as Sam is. Just because I am open minded to other ideas outside the traditional atheistic dogma, does not mean that we do not share a more important one in terms of our understanding of the terrible impact of organized religion on the world, and our shared sense of urgency in making the world understand this.

I admire the aggressive position you are taking; you are trying to re-frame the debate as one between rational people and irrational people. It may be effective in some cases, and you are perfectly justified in your thinking. But I do not think it is the most effective way to change a believers mind. This is why Sam brought up this issue; the important thing isn't whether a atheist is justified in his beliefs. The believer is just as well justified in their beliefs, from their perspective. The important issue, in what appears to be the final showdown of humanity, is to get the world to change the way it views religion, and to do it in the most effective efficient way possible.

Someone who professes a belief in God, yet is also very skeptical of organized religion, would be much more effective in changing the perspective of the believer, in terms of how they view religion, than an atheist would be. A confrontation with an atheist typically will only reinforce the believers faith, since they have their own arguments, and more importantly, they have faith. This is what Sam is referring to when he talks about how atheists step into the chalk line. They lose the debate before it starts, by identifying themselves as atheists. Professing a belief in God points the discussion with the believer into different territory, where they will not feel so defensive. This is simple psychology; Why no one has ever realized this is beyond me, considering all the time atheists have spent coming up with various arguments debunking religion.

If you are capable of professing a belief in God, you are approaching the discussion with the believer with a common thread, instead of a divisive stance. There is no reason why religion should have a lock on the term God, considering the value the term has, regarding it's association with ethics and values. More non-atheists who are skeptical of religion should embrace the word, instead of running from it. What does it take to be able to profess a belief in God? Simply a belief that their could be something in the spiritual realm, possibly that we are currently not even able to understand, as Sam mentioned in his speech. I wonder if Sam will ever profess a belief in God? It would make sense from a philosophical and strategic standpoint.

Other Comments by Armhouse