MUST HAVE BEEN A BAD MOVE

[QuadEight]

Is it unreasonable to be reasonable in a room full of believers? Why is it that the religious lot has the freedom to express their thoughts but not the non-believers? It's almost impossible to have a discussion without you being dismissed as immoral. How do you get across?

 

[Mr. Hildo]

Sounds like my family christmas get togethers :lol: I just don't get involved if anything near the topic of religion comes up, and try not to roll my eyes too much during the extensive grace before I can eat...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't see why you can't be honest about your views. On the other hand if you go out of your way to push your views in inappropriate settings, if you get what you deserve you can't really complain. If you're having folks over for dinner, you can say whatever you want. The office Christmas party might not be the place to have an argument over religion.

 

[JacobEvans]

I can't stand how much my family freaks out about my atheism.

 

[SatanicBunny]

Is it unreasonable to be reasonable in a room full of believers?

Of course not.

Why is it that the religious lot has the freedom to express their thoughts but not the non-believers?

It is not. That might be what the believers would want to, and it's exactly why you should not remain silent. In a society where freedom of religion is in effect it always covers the right to believe as well as the right of not believing or partcipating in any religion. You have the same rights to voice your oppinions as they do, regardless of what they say.

It's almost impossible to have a discussion without you being dismissed as immoral. How do you get across?

There is nothing special about God - nor any god(s) for that matter - that makes the moral coming from him any more valuable than that of coming from personal sources. The christian moral comes from the bibble, which is a book written by men and in no way can be said to be "the one and only moral-code" that God wants people to follow for we cannot even say that it is God's word and not just a normal book. Besides, even christians don't usually follow all the moral advices given on the bibble - especially those from the old testament. And because christians don't require total obedience of bibble from each other, they have no moral basis of requiring it from you.

Secondly, I personally think - as an atheist myself - that the existence of moral can be reasonably explained with evolution, espcecially social evolution. Humans have always been social animals living in groups, co-operation has been a key factor to survival even in pre-historic hunter-gatherer groups. This means that the individuals who did not comply with the rules of the group where probably left on their own which means their chances of survival and hence reproduction dropped.

The same can be seen in all animals that live in groups: antilopes living in the same herd are unlikely to hurt each other since they understand the benefits the herd offers. It's ofetn said that only humans are capable of moral behaviour but I think this demonstrates that the evolutionary basis of morality likely isn't theological, it's genetic.

With humans social evolution and capacity to communicate have just taken this evolution further and of course with developping cities and societies have just made the moral-code more complicated and we have had to create laws.

Moreover, when discussing moral only the deeds are what matter in the end, we can never have certain knowledge of someone else's motives. Laws are compromises made by the members of the society to reflect the general sense of moral in it. Therefore, we are usually happy as long as people obey the law, we don't care so much why they do it. I don't really care if someone doesn't stab me because he is afraid of going to jail or because he is afraid of divine punishment or because he thinks it's generally not acceptable behaviour to go around stabbing people - the result is still the same, and that's what matters.

Religion is one but not the only source of morals and the problem with it is that it's not very flexible. The bibble for example is a product of it's era and so is the moral depicted in it, like the acceptance of slavery and stoning of people who disobey God's word. This to me is more than enough of a proof that the bibble is by no means "the perfect" or the ultimate source of moral. However, if one reads it selectively enough, picking only those more universally accepted phareses such as "do onto others as you would want done onto you" there's nothing wrong with that. Besides, even an atheist can - if he/she so wants - use parts of the bibble as moral guidelines.

Like I said before, what matters in the end is the behaviour our sense of moral produces, not the origin. I pretty much try to follow the Golden Rule but not for religious reasons. I respect other people and the fact that they have a right to live and act in the same way I do. I have come to this position by the means of rational thinking and partially because of how I was raised.

And in the end, moral is always effected by multiple instances: your parents, your education and the society around you in addition to your own thoughts. So even though one's own moral might be of a religious orgin it doesn't mean that without the religion you'd have no morals at all. In fact, there is no proof or evidence to suggest that a "godless" world would be any more or less cruel or immoral. There are many rather secular countries in the world (for example the nordic countries and germany) that have significantly lower crimerates and amounts of prisoners compared to, for example the United States, which still is number one in the list despite being a highly religious country. (source: http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/reference/crime_world.html ).

While this might be a case of correlation is not causation and there are religous people who don't derive their sense of morals very strictly from the scripture it still demonstrates the point of my whole post: Being religious does not automatically make you good person any more than being an atheist automatically makes one immoral.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

I tend not to mind being the outcast in the room so I don't mind speaking my mind.

My mom was pissed when she found out me and my dad haven't celebrated Christmas in two years

 

[Jotto999]

I don't hold back just to avoid stepping on their absurd beliefs. While my aim is not to purposely offend, that of course will happen, but that's not my fault.

At family gatherings and stuff like that, I just act like myself. By trying to cover up my difference from them, I feel I would only be subtly perpetuating religion's dominating and unjust nature.

I do not say the prayers, I do not pretend to be anything I'm not. That to me is just silly. My beliefs are perfectly reasonable, especially when compared to theirs, if they cannot accept it, it says nothing about me and lots about them - close relative or not.

If anyone brings up the subject about my atheism and my lack of participation in religious activities, I simply tell them like it is. It's not like they can say anything I can't refute. There is nothing to be afraid of - and if they hate me for being different, the problem is not at my end, and I'm not going to pretend it is.

"Hey [insert-close-relative's-name], do you think it makes sense for individuals to pretend to be of the same beliefs as the traditional majority at family gatherings? Me neither."

I rarely get bothered after saying something roughly along those lines.

 

[SatanicBunny]

At family gatherings and stuff like that, I just act like myself. By trying to cover up my difference from them, I feel I would only be subtly perpetuating religion's dominating and unjust nature.

I do not say the prayers, I do not pretend to be anything I'm not. That to me is just silly. My beliefs are perfectly reasonable, especially when compared to theirs, if they cannot accept it, it says nothing about me and lots about them - close relative or not.

If anyone brings up the subject about my atheism and my lack of participation in religious activities, I simply tell them like it is. It's not like they can say anything I can't refute. There is nothing to be afraid of - and if they hate me for being different, the problem is not at my end, and I'm not going to pretend it is.

This couldn't be more true.

I understand that some want to stay silent about their atheism when in religious company. However to take it as far as to pretend that you believe in something you actually don't is not just a hypocrite thing to do, it's outright stupid.

I think religious people are delusional (their actions are not based on reason or the reality in which we all live in) and if an atheist does not challenge their beliefs you're accepting or perhaps even affirming those beliefs. Some might not care about this - and I understand, it can be more important for some to maintain a good relationship with one' family. However personnally I couldn't live with a religious family and not to try and do something. This does not mean I'd try to make them abandon their beliefs - it just means I would attempt to challenge them. Like you said: they cannot refute anything I say.

I consider it as my duty to look after the mental health of my family: If any of them starts fearing the revenge of an invisible man I think he needs help - and it doesn't matter if the said invisible man is a bearded guy on top of a cloud - to me it would still be as alarming a sing of something not being okay with their psyche.

 

[Sparky]

I think religious people are delusional (their actions are not based on reason or the reality in which we all live in) and if an atheist does not challenge their beliefs you're accepting or perhaps even affirming those beliefs.

Hmmm.... I have come to the conclusion that debate with a typical believer only entrenches them in their beliefs. All one can do is approach them and ask them what they know about such topics as quantum cosmology or the big bang or evolution and a few places to look for more information if they have no idea (which is most probable, especially with the big bang theory and quantum cosmology). The only way these people will change is if they want to. All you can do is point them down the path to reason and hope that they will start walking. What I say to them is that they will either come to the same conclusion as me or become a better religious person for having challenged their faith and in doing this, I hopefully make them a bit more willing to have a look and try to understand the afore mentioned topics.

I guess it would be possible to directly challenge an intellectually honest and open minded religious person but these are few and far between I would say.

 

[SatanicBunny]

Hmmm.... I have come to the conclusion that debate with a typical believer only entrenches them in their beliefs.

Indeed, this is often the case. Like I said I don't try to force anyone to abandon their beliefs. That will not give any actual results and like you said is probably only going make their faith stronger.

All you can do is point them down the path to reason and hope that they will start walking.

My point exactly. Showing atheism down anyone's throat is always ineffective. However, if you can actually make them think, to question the foundations of their faith you might just be onto something. It's not common because most deeply religous people at least lack either the needed intelligence, education or both of those to actually approach their beliefs from a (scientifically) critical perspective.

This is not to say that that it is alltogether impossible and especially if the person is someone close to you it's "worth" the shot.

If you can inspire a little amount of doubt in these people you're making progress, for with sufficient doubt will shatter the credibility of any religion.